Re: Review: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt

["Eric Klein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>]

Elwyn Davies wrote

> In terms of NAT-PT, I think it would be appropriate to add a section
> saying why it would be dangerous to constrain future developments of
> IPv6 networks by eliminating NATs and then adding back the general form
> of NAT-PT just to do transitions.  If it is agreed that this is wanted,
> I am prepared to draft a suitable piece of text.
>

I am not exactly sure, but it sounds like what you are proposing is exactly
opposite of the goal of this draft. Effectively this draft is saying that
NATs should  not exist in an IPv6 network and should not be supported as the
features and functions that NAT used to provide are now inherent in the IPv6
architecture.

In which case (IMHO) NAT-PT is strictly for transition from IPv4 only to
IPv4 and IPv6 networks and once the network moves to fully IPv6 there is no
need for NAT or NAT-PT.

Eric