Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

[Gert Doering <gert@space.net>]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 01:47:20AM -0700, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
> Now the problem will be getting consensus across the various WGs that seem 
> to have taken up beyond what v6OPS did and agree to make such a statement. 
> I am sure that we now have Behave and Softwires DHCPv6 (and others?) 
> looking into NAT as there is still a perception that NAT is needed even 
> after Site Locals were depreciated in RFC 3879 which became an RFC back in 
> September 2004. 

I'm not sure I understand why NAT and the depreciation of site-locals 
have any deeper relationship?

ULAs exist.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279