Brian, sorry for responding with delay.
I do agree with the disadvantages of translation that you are naming. But let me re-emphasize that my arguing in favor of translation is on the basis of this being a deployment tool, not a permanent mechanism. I believe we agree that, of the three issues with NATs,... (1) non-unique addresses make it hard to contact hosts behind a NAT (2) state inside the network prevents re-routing of traffic (3) non-end-to-end addresses require NAT traversal by applications ...the backwards compatibility mode of Six/One Router avoids the first two because it is stateless and uses only globally unique addresses. What remains is issue (3). I believe we agree that no future routing architecture should have this issue on a permanent basis. Where we disagree is whether the issue is acceptable for backwards compatibility and deployment. Lixia has named it: Whether we deem issue (3) acceptable or not, the issue will be present in IPv6 anyway because hosts will have to traverse IPv4/IPv6 NAT-PTs. The functionality that applications *require* because of NAT-PTs is exactly the functionality that Six/One Router's backwards compatibility mode will re-use. Furthermore, the time period during which NAT-PTs will be needed will likely outlast the time period during which Six/One Router's backwards compatibility mode will be used, due to the yet-small deployment of IPv6 compared to that of IPv4. (This is a personal opinion, though.) Brian, I fully understand and agree with the concerns you have with translation. Where our opinions differ is the extent to which translation is acceptable as a deployment aid. - Christian -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
