On 28-sep-2007, at 22:57, Alain Durand wrote:
Tunneling is great, but it requires to allocate an IPv4 address...
that I
may not have in the first place.
If an IPv6-only box is going to talk to the IPv4 world, at some
point, the traffic needs to hit a dual stack system that can do the
IPv6/IPv4 translation.
I think an approach where you have a regular IPv4 NAT and then tunnel
the RFC 1918 addresses over an IPv6-only network would work better
than NAT-PT.
If the tunnel provisioning system is flexible enough, it could even
give unNATed IPv4 addresses to (just) the hosts that need them,
possibly only temporarily.
