Re: Public talking abouit 6to4 (was comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00)

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

Eric, please don't use the abbreviation "6to4" except for
RFC 3056, otherwise people will get very confused.

Frankly we can't expect headline writers at the trade rags
to capture the subtleties of this debate. All the actual
quotes from Russ in Carolyn's article seem fine, and
obviously what Iljitsch writes is correct.

    Brian

On 2008-07-29 01:57, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
> Slightly off topic, but I just came cross 2 articles that try to explain
> to the public what the v6-to-v4 issue is about and seem to indicate that
> this will be very big in Dublin:
> Take a look at these, they are both very heavy with quotes (or are
> written by) people involved with v6 but not this discussion.
> After staunch resistance, NAT may come to IPv6 after all By Iljitsch van
> Beijnum -
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080722-after-staunch-resistance-nat-m
> ay-come-to-ipv6-after-all.html   
>     
> Much-maligned feature being added to IPv6
> Standards body weighs network address translators for next-gen Internet
> By Carolyn Duffy Marsan -
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072108-ipv6nat.html (quotes Fred
> Baker) IETF Chair Russ Housley says NATs are "necessary for a smooth
> transition from IPv4 to IPv6."
> These seems to be saying that v6NAT will be added, but if you read
> through both articles it is more of the 6to4 issue with a bad marketing
> slant.
> We need to watch this or we will be fighting inappropriate expectations.
> Eric
> 
>