Brian, > It seems that a real world problem case is not covered by this > update: tunneling v6 over v4 when there is a legacy CPE NAT in the way, > in an ISP-managed way (unlike Teredo). At the moment this is a well > known but orphaned problem, which will remain with us until the last > NAT44-only consumer CPE device has gone. > > It's certainly the case that this scenario doesn't quite match > RFC 4925 and doesn't need to "support all combinations of IP versions > over one other." However, that is just a matter of charter wordsmithing. > > Nit: there's a reference to NAT-PT; maybe it should be NAT64 these days.
that was the problem one set out to solve with RFC5571 (L2TP). what's missing from that solution? cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
