<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 9/28/07 8:46 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
but, ome months back, some wiser heads in the ivtf listened and agreed<BR>
that nat-pt (no, alain, i will not be silly and let people force me to<BR>
confuse things by calling it something else), is seriously required even<BR>
though it is disgusting to us all. thank you russ and jari; and i am<BR>
sure others will climb on the bandwagon and wave flags.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
---> 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.<BR>
<BR>
As about liking NAT or not, honestly, this is totally beside the point. I have real problems to solve.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
- Alain.</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>