Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
Alain Durand
alain_durand at cable.comcast.com
Mon Oct 1 13:20:12 UTC 2007
On 9/29/07 11:10 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran at mail.com> wrote:
>
> The irony is that the I* rationale for moving NAT-PT to historic
> was "to restore the end-to-end transparency of the Internet"
>
>
> ===> John,
>
> With all due respect, I will recommend you to read 4966, reasons to move
> NAT-PT to historical
>
> Abstract
>
> This document discusses issues with the specific form of IPv6-IPv4
> protocol translation mechanism implemented by the Network Address
> Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) defined in RFC 2766. These
> issues are sufficiently serious that recommending RFC 2766 as a
> general purpose transition mechanism is no longer desirable, and this
> document recommends that the IETF should reclassify RFC 2766 from
> Proposed Standard to Historic status.
>
> - Alain.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20071001/81a798c7/attachment.html>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list