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

[Gert Doering <gert@space.net>]

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 07:24:52AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> AFAICS, there is nothing stopping from deploying IPv4 w/ private
> addresses alongside with IPv6, and IPv6 could even be used dominantly
> in the network (if that's felt to be desirable for a political
> reasons, or to gain experience) if the typically used services such as
> HTTP, SMTP, DNS, etc. could be proxied by ALGs at the border.

I'm not sure if this is *better* than IPv6-only with NAT-PT at the border.

If the network is large enough, the effort for maintaining IPv4 addresses
and a dual-stack network infrastructure can be significantly higher than
for an IPv6-only network.

IPv4 with private addresses uses NAT, IPv6->IPv4 uses NAT-PT - both are
evil, can't say one of them is "worse".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  66629  (65398)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299