RE: WG last call on NAT-PT to Experimental

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

I am with you Fred. ACK.
thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Baker Fred [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 5:13 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Elwyn Davies; Rémi Després; Pekka Savola; v6ops
> Subject: Re: WG last call on NAT-PT to Experimental
> 
> On Mar 13, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > IPv6 dominant does not mean IPv4 does not exist but that 
> IPv6 has been 
> > on purpose chosen to be used and IPv4 is there on all nodes but not 
> > being used on a specific network. IPv6 only and IPv6 dominant need 
> > differentiation from us as a community. Thus the question 
> is the edge 
> > dual IP?
> 
> Of course.
> 
> The principal use of IPv4 in an otherwise IPv6 network is generally 
> supporting applications that have not made the transition yet, I 
> suspect.  I know of some networks (CNGI for example) that are 
> proposing 
> to use a combination of IPv4 and IPv6 within the backbone for various 
> purposes, but only offer an IPv6 edge. You allude to a period 
> in which 
> companies have parts of their infrastructure addressed using IPv4 and 
> parts not. While that is a possible scenario, I doubt its 
> importance - 
> that will be solved using IPv4 NAT.
>