Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion

["JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Yes, this is a very good point. I included this in the new document.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5:01 PM
Subject: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion


> I agree with what Margaret said in the meeting - if we're going to
> recommend behavior to NAT vendors we should recommend that the NATs
> implement a v6 router.  Of course if they do that it's pretty simple and
> obvious to have that router support a 6to4 interface.
> 
> I also agree that this document isn't the right place to put a detailed
> recommendation about how to implement v6 in a SOHO v4NAT/v6router box.
> 
> So maybe it could be said that nailing up protocol 41 in a v4NAT box is
> a temporary measure until the NATs can be upgraded to support v6
> routing in the box?
> 

*****************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on-line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com