Re: comments on draft-durand-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirement s-00 .txt

[Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>]

On Apr 15, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Fred Templin wrote:

>  All I'm saying is that explicit NAT traversal
> mechanisms should be used only as a last-resort, and unencumbered
> IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling (or, better yet, native IPv6) should be used
> instead whenever possible.

Once again we are in agreement. This is absolutely compatible
with section 6.3:

6.3 NAT Considerations

   The assisted tunnel established by the protocol to be designed must
   work with the existing infrastructure, in particular it must be
   compatible with the various customer premise equipments available
   today.  This means that, in particular, the tunnels must be able to
   traverse one or many NAT boxes of different kinds. There is no
   requirement for any particular NAT traversal technology. However, as
   NAT traversal usually requires an extra layer of encapsulation, the
   tunnel set-up protocol must be able to detect automatically the
   presence of one or more NAT boxes in the path.

I will add text that spells out that when no NAT is present,
simple IPv6/IPv4 encapsulation MUST be used. It seemed obvious to
me, but apparently it will be better to clarify.

	- Alain.