[99643] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alain Durand)
Mon Oct 1 09:25:22 2007
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:20:12 -0400
From: Alain Durand <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran@mail.com>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
CC: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <p06240802c324bee31bbc@[192.168.3.65]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3274075213_202185
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
On 9/29/07 11:10 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran@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.
>
--B_3274075213_202185
Content-type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<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=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 9/29/07 11:10 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran@mail.com> wrote=
:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYL=
E=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
The irony is that the I* rationale for moving NAT-PT to historic<BR>
was "to restore the end-to-end transparency of the Internet"<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
=3D=3D=3D> John,<BR>
<BR>
With all due respect, I will recommend you to read 4966, reasons to move NA=
T-PT to historical<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Courier, Courier New"><SPAN STYLE=3D=
'font-size:13.0px'>Abstract<BR>
<BR>
This document discusses issues with the specific form of =
IPv6-IPv4<BR>
protocol translation mechanism implemented by the Network=
Address<BR>
Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) defined in RFC =
2766. These<BR>
issues are sufficiently serious that recommending RFC 276=
6 as a<BR>
general purpose transition mechanism is no longer desirab=
le, and this<BR>
document recommends that the IETF should reclassify RFC 2=
766 from<BR>
Proposed Standard to Historic status.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'fo=
nt-size:12.0px'><BR>
- Alain. <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STY=
LE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--B_3274075213_202185--
