Re: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt

["Eric Klein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>]

From: "Thomas Narten" 

> FWIW, I, without having done a complete review of the document or of
> Margaret's comments, did look long enough to agree that more work is
> needed. Specifically:
<snip> 
> This is _so_ true. I then skimmed the document and the word
> "renumbering" barely appears at all, and never mentions avoiding the
> need to renumber as one of the real benefits of NAT. IMO, this
> document is completely inadequate and unbalanced if it doesn't
> recognize the clear value that NAT plays in the renumbering debate and
> speak to that point directly.
>
> Reading section 2 (the alleged benefits), I do not find the topic of
> renumbering to be covered adequately.
I thought that DHCPv6 was the solution to renumbering.