Re: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-03.txt

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

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:37:10PM +0200, EricLKlein wrote:
> 
> All I want is a consistent message to go out from this WG as to the status
> of private addresses and NAT.

I'm confused from what you write Eric.

Private addresses exist in IPv6, as ULAs or CA ULAs.  "Site locals" were
deprecated, but ULAs are different (reducing the ambiguity issue) and
CA ULAs different again (in theory removing the ambiguity issue).

NAT could be used for IPv6, but anyone doing so is shooting themselves in the
foot and should just stick with IPv4+NAT.

Many sites will use IPv4+NAT alongside IPv6 (without NAT).  They can then
use IPv6 for more advanced p2p and inter-site applications, and use IPv4
for legacy apps like mail and web browsing.

Tim