Re: draft for Translator discussion

[Hiroshi MIYATA <miyata@tahi.org>]

Hi Iljitsh,

Thanks for your reading.
If we have only one approach that we require modification of existing
IPv6 hosts, it may create deployment delay.

Modifying NAT-PT itself may not create delays, as far as it does not
require IPv6 host modification.

Also we have to be aware that there are some translator implementation
based on NAT-PT, but not fully compliant NAT-PT, since vendors already
realized that implementations fully compliant to NAT-PT does not work
well.
The advantage of it is not requiring modification on IPv6 hosts. ;-)
The disadvantage of it is not resolving all issues listed on  
RFC4966. ;-(

I implicitly think that some vendors may think it is too expensive to
implement IPv6 host which fully support perfect and/or multipurpose
tranlator.

My another point is directing document is also required.

Thanks,

...miyata


On 2007/12/06, at 10:34, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 5 dec 2007, at 16:21, Hiroshi MIYATA wrote:
>
> > To ask your opinion, I described my concern briefly.(just as the  
> > first step)
> > When we consider the tranlator, this kind of document itself is  
> > also required not to
> > produce the missing part, I think.
>
> > http://www.tahi.org/~miyata/doc/draft-miyata-v6ops-trans- 
> > approach-00.txt
> > (I submitted it to IETF)
>
> > Please take a glance and give your comments. It is very short one.
>
> Do I understand correctly that your concern is that modifying  
> either existing NAT-PT implementations and/or existing IPv6 hosts  
> when we update the NAT-PT mechanism would create deployment delays?
>
> Iljitsch