Re: changes to draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Alain Durand escribió:
> On 7/17/08 11:29 AM, "marcelo bagnulo braun" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>
>   
> > > How is this different from the dual-stack lite mechanism? See
> > > draft-durand-dual-stack-lite-00.txt, section 3.2
> > >
> > >   
> > >       
> > I don't know
> > I am working on the requirement draft, not on solution space.
> > So do you think we need to include this in the req draft or not?
> >     
>
> Well, I'm not sure. If you are talking about the requirement for a NAT
> v6->v4, then I would say no, but add a pointer to my draft.
>   
it is not only a translation requirement draft
read the draft, find out  and comment :-)
>   
> > > Second question, if you have that, why is it not enough and why would you
> > > still need to do any IPv6 to IPv4 translation?
> > >
> > >   
> > >       
> > well, it seems that you will be having legacy IPv6 hosts (i.e. no new
> > mechanisms) that are running IPv6 apps that want to communicate with v4
> > hosts that are running ipv4 apps and in that case, this doesn't seem to work
> >     
>
> The only thing that is required for dual-stack lite is a v4/v6 tunnel that
> is present on most implementation I know, so no new code is needed.
> And if this is still a problem, you can always use a router upstream to do
> the encap for you.
>   
but you would need to have v4 on your hosts, right?

the assumption for translation is that you have v6 only nodes on one side

regards, marcelo


>   - Alain.
>
>
>