> At 1:56 AM +0900 7/2/07, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > > NAT-PT really needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. It provides
> >> all of the disadvantages of IPv4+NAT with all of the transition costs of
> >> IPv6. If there is ever any significant penetration of NAT-PT, then the
> >> pseudo-IPv6 network will not be able to support any more kinds of
> >> applications than the NATted IPv4 does today.
> >
> > i tend to agree, but in rfc-index.txt i could not find the change of
> > state to "Historic". what happend to very similar (and much more evil
> > IMHO) transition technology, SIIT?
>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/?search_filename=draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic>
>
> indicates that the document making NAT-PT is in the RFC Editor's
> queue.
i am not convinced at all with the content of the draft. if NAT-PT
is to be made historic due to the claims presented in the draft,
all of the NAT related documents have to be made historic, instead of
informational, since "informational" can be misleading to people who
try to implement stuff.
the worst of all is RFC3235. and all of the NAT traversal documents
(RFC3489, RFC3519, RFC3715, RFC3947, RFC4091, RFC4092, RFC4380) has to
be banned at once.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 911
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
