Re: changes to draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt

[Alain Durand <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>]

On 7/17/08 11:29 AM, "marcelo bagnulo braun" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>> How is this different from the dual-stack lite mechanism? See
>> draft-durand-dual-stack-lite-00.txt, section 3.2
>> 
>>   
> I don't know
> I am working on the requirement draft, not on solution space.
> So do you think we need to include this in the req draft or not?

Well, I'm not sure. If you are talking about the requirement for a NAT
v6->v4, then I would say no, but add a pointer to my draft.

>> Second question, if you have that, why is it not enough and why would you
>> still need to do any IPv6 to IPv4 translation?
>> 
>>   
> well, it seems that you will be having legacy IPv6 hosts (i.e. no new
> mechanisms) that are running IPv6 apps that want to communicate with v4
> hosts that are running ipv4 apps and in that case, this doesn't seem to work

The only thing that is required for dual-stack lite is a v4/v6 tunnel that
is present on most implementation I know, so no new code is needed.
And if this is still a problem, you can always use a router upstream to do
the encap for you.

  - Alain.