I would much prefer the approach mentioned before -- create an addressing infrastructure that solves known issues better than NAT. I think the current draft(s) being discussed are getting close.
--On Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:24 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about something like:
IPv6 has enough addressing space that allows avoid the need of any kind of address translation, that is considered harmful according [RFCxxxx]. Consequently, IPv6 nodes MUST NOT support any kind of address translation.
Hans Kruse, Associate Professor J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701 740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
