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

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Brian E Carpenter escribió:
> 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.
>   
this seems to be a clear case of no consensus, i am afraid, and i am not 
sure what to do about this

i will raise the question in the meeting and try to figure this one out 
there

>   
> > > >    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.
>
>   
will do

regards, marcelo


>    Brian
>
>
>