On Feb 4, 2009, at 5:38 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Eric,
The original threads that lead to this list being created all came
down to the basic Boolean question:
Do we in the IETF want to allow NAT66 at all in IPv6 even though
IPv6 was originally designed not to allow it?
I think we need to spend time on why we might want to do this, and
what the alternative approaches might be.
As phrased above the discussion has the danger of becoming a
religious debate. Lets do the work to analyze what needs we have,
how those can be fulfilled, and whether NAT66 fits in. I guess I'm
agreeing with Remi here...
Let's be careful, though, that we don't redo the work that was already
done in the v6ops WG to identify the benefits of NAT and the
alternatives/gaps in IPv6.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
