[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario

To: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
Subject: Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario
From: Alain Durand <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:42:21 -0400
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <485769EE.8030503@free.fr>
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.10.0.080409

On 6/17/08 3:38 AM, "Rémi Després" <remi.despres@free.fr> wrote:

> Alain Durand  - Le 6/17/08 3:29 AM :
>> Brian,
>> 
>> Please note that this work (464pb statement & solution) is taken to
>> softwires.
> is this to imply that the following drafts should from now on be
> discussed in Softwires?
> - draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt
> - draft-bagnulo-behave-nat64-00.txt
> Any pointer to clarify where we stand would be useful.

No. I'm only talking about Nat464.

  - Alain.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario
  - From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>

References:
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario
  - From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>

Prev by Date: Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario
Next by Date: Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario
Previous by thread: Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario
Next by thread: Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread