Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

Sat Sep 29 01:59:11 UTC 2007

On 9/28/07 8:46 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> but, ome months back, some wiser heads in the ivtf listened and agreed
> that nat-pt (no, alain, i will not be silly and let people force me to
> confuse things by calling it something else), is seriously required even
> though it is disgusting to us all.  thank you russ and jari; and i am
> sure others will climb on the bandwagon and wave flags.
> 
> 
> ---> I do not care so much how people want to call this, as long as it is
> understood that this should not only solve the v6->v4 case but also the other
> way round for the reasons I mentioned this morning.
> 
> As about liking NAT or not, honestly, this is totally beside the point. I have
> real problems to solve.

             - Alain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070928/d7bc8a4c/attachment.html>