[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt
marcelo bagnulo braun wrote :
During some of the discussion, for instance during the one on DNSSec,
people have expressed that they don't feel that we need to require
DNSSec support for v4 initiated communications cause these where not
So, i guess we need to define this
IMO, trying to propose solutions for v4 initiated communications at the
same time as those for v6 initiated ones, would result into
- Dual stack hosts that have v6 connectivity and no public v4 address,
and that have to reach legacy v4-only servers, should have a better
solution than through cascaded v4-to-v4 NATs.
- Dual stack hosts that have v4 addresses will most probably get also v6
connectivity (possibly trough tunnels) well before v4 to v6 NATs can be
specified, implemented and deployed.