El 22/11/2007, a las 6:46, Christian Huitema escribió:
In addition, as IPv4 public address space is depleted, it will no longer possible to access to IPv4 public addresses, making dual stack nodes even less attractive.Well, if I was implementing a new service, I would work very hard to get a public IPv4 address for it, so I don't think this argument works for servers and services for many years to come. It clearly will apply to client systems much sooner. So I'd rather see the problem expressed as: New populations of clients (and p2p hosts) that have no public IPv4 address, but do have plentiful public IPv6 addresses, which need to contact legacy servers (and p2p hosts) that have a public IPv4 address (possibly NATted) but no IPv6 capability.What P2P hosts are we speaking of, exactly? As far as I know, there are very few PC-class hosts that cannot now run some form of IPv6, using a transition technology like Teredo or 6to4. P2P applications are thus very likely to use that.I suggest that we limit the scope of the problem to enabling IPv6 only hosts to contact legacy IPv4 servers, assuming that these servers in fact have a global IPv4 address. Smaller problems are easier to solve...
but this is what basic NAT-PT (FC 2766) does and the actual limitations why it was moved to historic don't apply to the basic NAT- PT but to the extended scenario, when it supports communications from v4 to v6...
so, one option would be to just cut the basic nat pt of RFC 2766 and just standarize that part (again)
Regards, marcelo
-- Christian Huitema