RE: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexistence RequirementI-D

["Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EricLKlein@softhome.net [mailto:EricLKlein@softhome.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:11 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Rémi Després'; 'marcelo bagnulo braun'; 'v6ops'
> Subject: Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexistence 
> RequirementI-D
> 
> Dan Wing writes: 
> 
> >> Following some privatly received comments of Dan Wing, the 
> >> standby phase hasn't be long, and the idea to possibly give up 
> >> APBP stands no longer ! 
> >> 
> >> I just posted draft-01,  with  I believe  substantial 
> simplifications 
> >> and improved applicability. 
> >> 
> >> Sorry for the one more change.
> > 
> > Allow me to elaborate a bit on our offline discussion over 
> the weekend. 
> > 
> > I noticed all of the current proposals (SNAT, NAT64, NAT6, IVI,
> > dual-stack-lite, etc.) are quiet on a significant aspect of 
> a requirement that
> > is important:  keeping existing games and existing 
> applications working.  I am
> > thinking of game boxes like Microsoft's Xbox that need UPnP 
> IGD in order to
> > function properly over the Internet, and applications such 
> as Microsoft
> > Netmeeting (needs an H.323 ALG in the NAT), Quicktime and 
> RealAudio streaming
> > (RTSP), and so on.  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3027 does 
> a good job of
> > explaining the specifics. 
> > 
> 
> As much as I hate discussions about NAT in context of IPv6, a 
> good draft to 
> look at is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jennings-behave-nat6-00

I attempted to kick off a discussion of that draft on Behave.
I would certainly like to see more discussion of it.

-d