Re: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT

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

This is exactly what I already reflected in the new version of the draft.

I will wait for more inputs before publish it.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "HELENA RUTE SOFIA" <rsofia@seas.upenn.edu>
To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT


> 
> One thing that is really puzzling me about this draft is: do we really
> need this?? There are currently two options that have "more" priority in
> terms of implementation, i.e., v6 and 6to4...so why try to create a
> document on something that is currently assumed to work, and that is only
> used as a "hack", when one of the other two is not working?? Why do we
> need a document on this?
> 
> Rute
> 
> 
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> > Agree, it should work.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jordi
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alain Durand" <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>
> > To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5:01 PM
> > Subject: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT
> >
> >
> > > A NAT box could do the following when receiving an IPv6 packet
> > > encapsulated in IPv4 with proto 41:
> > >
> > > If IPv6 dst does not belong to the local 6to4 /48 prefix, forward
> > > internally,
> > > else decapsulate.
> > >
> > > Why will will not work?
> > >
> > > - Alain.
> > >
> >
> > *****************************
> > Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
> > Presentations and videos on-line at:
> > http://www.ipv6-es.com
> >
> >
> >
> 

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