Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-aoun-v6ops-natpt-deprecate-00.txt

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
> 
>  Nevertheless,  I  know  several  sites are using NAT-PT efficiently on
>  their use cases.

It would be interesting, with the enterprise analysis in mind, to know
why these sites used NAT-PT, and what they could not solve in other ways.

We used to run NAT-PT, but no longer do.

As Pekka points out, we should also consider how IPv4 and IPv6 will be
adopted.  IPv4 may remain the protocol to access legacy apps (like web,
mail, ftp).  But these are also the ones that lend themselves to natural 
proxying (and sure FTP proxies are rare, but so are NAT-PT boxes :).
IPv6 may become more popular for specific new applications, which do not
require access to IPv4 services, as Pekka is hinting.

Suresh wrote:
>  As Senthil points out, the assumption that NAT-PT deployment will stifle
>  innovation in v6 seems flawed. NAT-PT is a transition mechanism which is
>  essential for wider V6 deployment. Without NAT-PT, you will see bigger
>  resistance to deploying V6 . You need NAT-PT for legacy applications (ex:
>  e-mail, ftp) to work as is across V4 and V6 realms. No change to end-hosts or
>  applications. This is the attraction of NAT-PT. This is not the same as the
>  proxy solution that will require applications to be changed/recompiled.

Proxies can be deployed transparently.  SMTP naturally so, Web caches also,
there doesn't necessarily have to be any client side alterations.

Tim