Hi,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 01:47:20AM -0700, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
Now the problem will be getting consensus across the various WGs that seem
to have taken up beyond what v6OPS did and agree to make such a statement.
I am sure that we now have Behave and Softwires DHCPv6 (and others?)
looking into NAT as there is still a perception that NAT is needed even
after Site Locals were depreciated in RFC 3879 which became an RFC back in
September 2004.
I'm not sure I understand why NAT and the depreciation of site-locals
have any deeper relationship?
ULAs exist.