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

["Liu Min" <liumin@ict.ac.cn>]

As far as I know, there will be a specific project to research and develop
high performance IPv4/IPv6 translation gateway in CNGI. Because there are
fewer IPv6 applications and resources than IPv4 in the current Internet, it
is difficult to persuade people to use IPv6.Most IPv6 users want to access
IPv4 resources. In order to spread IPv6, we must tell the users that they
can access all IPv4 resources. In addition, they can do what they can not do
by IPv4, such as p2p applications (Many people only have private IPv4
addresses). 

 
Best Wishes,
 

Liu Min
 
Institute of Computing Technology
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Tel: (86-10) 6256 5533-9240 
E-mail: liumin@ict.ac.cn


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 4:37 PM
> To: 'V6OPS'
> Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-aoun-v6ops-natpt-deprecate-00.txt
> 
> Hello,
> 
> in Asia there seem to be emerging _large_ IPv6 only networks that may
> need some connectivity to the IPv4 Internet. Example of these is for
> instance is CNGI. They have been extensively looking for a NAT-PT type
> solution and are considering to use NAT-PT. I think we should have some
> sort of proposal what to do if we decide that NAT-PT is not the way to
> go.
> 
> I wish the people that are involved in these projects would speak up and
> explain their requirements.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonne.
> 
> On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 16:46, ext Tim Chown wrote:
> > 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
> --
> Jonne Soininen
> Nokia
> 
> Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
> E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com