Re: New Version Notification for draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

chair hat off.

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.

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.

On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:

> On 2010-04-16 12:02, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>> In summary, that is *dual-stack deployments* that must be "encouraged" today.
>> 
>> Disagree.
> 
> Dual-stack deployment, as encouraged by the IETF, didn't mean IPv6+NAT44.
> 
> In my opinion, IPv6+NAT64 is less evil than IPv6+NAT44.
> 
> Simon
> -- 
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server        --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> vCard 4.0               --> http://www.vcarddav.org

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF