On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 22:07, EricLKlein wrote: > General comment: > As IPv6 does not support NAT in any native form I would like to see the term > NAT replaced with IPv4 NAT through out the docuement, and a comment at the > start to the effect that there is no such thing as IPv6 NAT. NAT is an IPv4 only thing, there must be no IPv6 NAT, better to not name it separately IMHO. <SNIP> > Final comment: > I am also unclear why it is assumed that UDP is the prefered protocol. UDP > has no retransmits, so lost packets will stay lost while TCP has retransmit > based on acknowledgements. WHy force this on UDP? Because the IP protocol running inside UDP will take care of the retransmits and if you are doing IPv6 over TCP you will need to reorder packets, keep connections open, state etc. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part