[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New Version Notification for draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02
On 2010-04-16 13:28, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't think that RFC 4213 says anything about NATs pro or con; a
quick scan of the document didn't find the character string "NAT" or
"[nN]etwork [aA]ddress" anywhere in it. What it says could be
summarized as "turn on IPv6 in your existing IPv4 network", without
making much comment on the IPv4 network. In today's world, any IPv4
network that interfaces with edge networks, which is to say the edge
networks themselves or the ISPs they talk with, will find a NAT
somewhere in the discussion.
Exactly my point. RFC 4213 doesn't consider NATs.
In other words, I disagree that the the statement has anything to do
with the IPv4 implementation whatsoever. It says to turn on IPv6
without changing your IPv4 implementation.
If an ISP wants to go from providing NAT44 to providing IPv6+NAT64,
would that go against the IETF's dual-stack recommendation? It sure
seems like it since it involves completely shutting down IPv4.
NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0 --> http://www.vcarddav.org