[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT

To: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:33:17 +1300
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, David Miles <davidm@thetiger.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dpayFJhNdpXJrmLdfMd3SzbxxuAFpDM3Jm0dumf0cCWfU59vC3eXYOFwzTnwnymD/yb0CM92l1O1AeZzjTwT5kUBaT0Wt4gpyMZZ3QSjXJrP3pgQbYn68E5rOlrwbjRM5NEajWXeU8beMR7WP3C6buzjUFBzzaDqDOQwEwP7QH4=
In-reply-to: <AFE0AC8DCDE68842B94E8EC69D5F21D604E359EBFD@NA-EXMSG-W602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
References: <5FCD348C-5927-4F18-A002-0E3BF21ED5F4@NLnetLabs.nl> <47110056.70400@piuha.net> <47251FBA.9030507@gmail.com> <FBBEC281-65AB-47C6-A9D8-389DB9435D55@thetiger.com> <4726453A.2030500@gmail.com> <E5EF3E67-1C35-44EC-8EDC-9376AEA3A620@muada.com> <AFE0AC8DCDE68842B94E8EC69D5F21D604E359EBD7@NA-EXMSG-W602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <20071111095909.GH69215@Space.Net> <AFE0AC8DCDE68842B94E8EC69D5F21D604E359EBFD@NA-EXMSG-W602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)

On 2007-11-12 04:35, Christian Huitema wrote:

From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 1:59 AM

On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 08:12:27AM -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:

Implementing "dual stack" is not much harder than implementing "IPv6
only", so this is pretty much a no-brainer.

I want to challenge that.  How are you going to implement "dual stack"
if no more IPv4 addresses are available?


I meant "implementing dual stack in a device". Suppose you have built an IPv6 capable device. The added requirements for supporting IPv4 boils down to DHCPv4 client, ARP support, and a little bit of glue. That really is not a lot of "real estate".


All true, but if you dispute the IAB's statement please
talk to the IAB. I've decided to stop being a purist on this
and see what can really be done to mitigate the problems with
NAT-PT. I suspect that if the IETF doesn't do this, then the
deprecation of NAT-PT will be a complete no-op.

    Brian

References:
- Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
- Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
  - From: David Miles <davidm@thetiger.com>
- Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
- Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- RE: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
  - From: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
- Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
  - From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
- RE: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
  - From: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
Next by Date: draft-arifumi-6man-addr-select-sol-00.txt moved to 6man
Previous by thread: Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
Next by thread: Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread