[99656] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Mon Oct 1 15:39:38 2007
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:35:18 -1000
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran@mail.com>
CC: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>,
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <p06240806c326ec055024@[192.168.4.143]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> Now the more interesting question is: Given that we're going
> to see NAT-PT in a lot of service provider architectures to make
> deploying IPv6 viable, should it be considered a general enough
> transition mechanism to be Proposed Standard or just be a very
> widely deployed Historic protocol?
to remind you of my original message pushing nat-pt. the nat
functionality itself needs standardization, as well as algs for dns,
smtp, http, sip, and rtp.
these will be sufficiently widely deployed, that we need the
interchangability and testability that standardization gives us.
what i did not say at that time, but think would be quite useful, is
that it would be nice to have a standardized api for new algs.
randy
