Dear Gang,
"NOT PRACTICABLE" has two meanings. 1) Restricted port aware host is relatively few case
Since we are not developing mechanisms for the period of the next few months, I don't think this argument is relevant. Long term, there might (hopefully) be more such hosts.
2) Socket need to be modified. That is a practical challenge, not only bind() but also connect()
This is just one of the ways to implement this. See Jan's mail on PAT.
The consumption is to produce a brand-new network. If that is the case, I may prefer going to native IPv6 network.
I am very sorry, but I don't understand what you mean with your first sentence. Of course I want/will go to native IPv6 network, but during the IPv4/IPv6 coexistence, I will need IPv4 connectivity as well! And this is why I want my hosts, connected to IPv6-only network, to also support A+P. So I don't need any nat. If you think my arguments don't hold, please comment on them one-by-one so that I understand why they don't hold. Thanks, Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
