Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT - a new approach

[John Curran <jcurran@mail.com>]

At 5:26 PM +1300 11/10/07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>Contrary to what a lot of folks think, I don't think that the
>>backwards-compatibility IPv4 connectivity really needs to
>>be general purpose, or application friendly, or support a
>>truly end2end model.  
>
>But if it doesn't support *unknown* or even *future* applications,
>it is going to cause help desk calls (probably insoluble help
>desk calls, too). I realise that NAT does that today, but surely
>we'd like to do better?

We'd like to do better, and should if we can...   In any case,
there's still going to be a lot of ISP's saying to customers:
"Look, that site is only connected to the legacy Internet;
once they upgrade to the new stuff, you'll work fine. Why
don't you ask them why they're sooo far behind?"

>>If there's a way to improve the resulting connectivity
>>without create a raft of customer configuration and
>>support issues, it's probably of value to the community.
>
>As far as I can see the configuration issues aren't major.
>All user systems served by the same SHANTI translator will
>need to know its IPv6 and IPv4 address by configuration -
>Yet Another DHCP Option could provide that.

That would definitely help...  please consider adding
consideration of such to your draft.

Thanks!
/John