[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Iljiitsch and Brian,
Thanks for the early information, and for the thorough analysis detailed
in the document.
1. Full agreement, and support, on the importance of IPv6 to IPv4
connections (I argued about it in v6 ops as early as March 2005, but
alone at that time!).
2. On several points, I believe that simplifications are possible.
I would really like to have a in depth discussion with you in Philadelphia.
One of the items would be a better understanding of why mapped addresses
have been avoided in your proposal. (So far, I believe they have real
advantages and, in the NAT-PT case at hand, no real drawback).
Another item would be where checksum adjustment best fits.
3. Another essential transition configuration is that of a v4 host in a
site which has a v6 prefix but no v4 public address.
This is the NATv4v6v4 of Alain Durand in
I have a proposal in the pipe for this , but very little time to
finalize an I-D.
Still hope to have it before the deadline.
It has various relationships with MNAT-PT and SHANTI.