Re: [BEHAVE] IPv6 Flow Label

[David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>]

Hesham,

On May 6, 2008, at 5:58 AM, Hesham Soliman wrote:
> I think that a perfectly useful answer to the IESG is to say that  
> since
> there is no _need_ for NATs in IPv6, we don't have to consider it.

The fact that IPv6 has the same routing technology as IPv4 guarantees  
there will be a market for NATv6 (assuming IPv6 gets deployed), if for  
no other reason than people not wanting to be tied to their ISP.

> Personally, I think the appropriate behaviour is not to do anything  
> for
> IPv6 and NATs.

It would be sad if the IETF did not learn from past mistakes.

Regards,
-drc