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

Re: Old / new NAT-PT coexistance?

To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Old / new NAT-PT coexistance?
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:18:49 +0100
Cc: v6ops Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <FA60905B-80A0-476D-9B71-36F5053AB538@cisco.com>
References: <8B671299-995F-4F3E-9BF2-33DC75A2D90B@muada.com> <FA60905B-80A0-476D-9B71-36F5053AB538@cisco.com>



On 30-jan-2008, at 19:32, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

Speaking strictly for myself, I don't see any reason to believe thatNAT-PT is dead. I believe that v6ops doesn't like it, but it isimplemented and in use. We all know how folks who are successfullyusing something automatically turn it off and use something elsewhen we tell them to...


So that would be a "yes" to the EDNS0 idea?

References:
- Old / new NAT-PT coexistance?
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- Re: Old / new NAT-PT coexistance?
  - From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-jcurran-v6transitionplan-02.txt
Next by Date: Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-jcurran-v6transitionplan-02.txt
Previous by thread: Re: Old / new NAT-PT coexistance?
Next by thread: Re: Old / new NAT-PT coexistance?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread