Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-07-18 02:31, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
...
> 
> same question that i have done to Dan, do you think servers can be
> located in v6 land or only peers? (i.e. p2p applications with v4 and v6
> peers)

Ideally both. If we place any restrictions they will cause a problem
in 5, 10 or 15 years time.

> 
>>>    o  R2.2.1: v4 initiators can either use IPv4 public addresses or IPv4
>>>       private addresses and use a NAT.(The acceptance of R2.2.1 is
>>>       subject to the acceptance of R2.2.
>>>     
>>
>> As noted above, that does *not* imply a separate NAT; it could be
>> combined
>> with the NAT64.
>>
>>   
> cahnges nat by nat function, ok?

Yes, we'd better not over-design in the requirements stage.

   Brian