Re: draft-satapati-v6ops-natpt-applicability-00

[Suresh K Satapati <satapati@cisco.com>]

Pekka,

Lets not mislead the WG here.

From the thread:
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2003/msg01271.html

I disagree with:

 2 b) only a more limited set of IPv6-only networks
    in the applicability statement.  These scenarios, may be
    counterproductive in the face of dual-stack deployment.

 3. The recommendation of the specific scenarios.  In the body of the
    text, some applicability was identified in two kinds of networks: the
    legacy IPv4 equipment and 3GPP.  There was no full consensus that
    going down that deployment path (the point above) would
    necessarily make sense.

As I see it, there was infact a consensus among the DT on the scenarios.
The above are more of your opinions on the draft. Pls do not represent the
DT on the above.

I did not see a major disagreement on the applicable scenarios, except
from you (as in 2b and 3) . The slight opposition was on the IMS media
translation in 3GPP scenario. Others can speak for themselves on this.

--
Suresh

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > I think this is very useful draft and it's in good shape.
> > I'd like to see the section on 3GPP2 completed, but otherwise
> > the sooner we get this analysis published, the better.
>
> Thanks Brian.  Just in case, did you have a look at the "NAT-PT
> applicability considerations" thread, at:
>
> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2003/msg01271.html
>
> .. which tried to provoke thoughts on several subjects relating to the
> document which might be unanimous.
>
> Do you have any further comments to make based on these?
>
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>
>