Subject: RE: FW: Why?

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:51:32 -0500

Would someone with first-hand knowledge of the reasons "several major
corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT with IPv6" be
willing to compare those reasons with the reasons listed in
draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01, and identify any reasons that might be
missing from Gunter's document?  Might be useful to consider extending
draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01 to address all the known reasons for IPv6 NAT.

- Ralph

At 07:35 AM 3/11/2005 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
> >> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> >> Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have
> >> already seen several major corporations publicly indicate
> >> that they intend to use NAT with IPv6, even though they can
> >> get enough public address space.
>
> > Tim Chown wrote:
> > I assume the reason is lack of PI space, or is it a mixture
> > of the other commonly cited reasons?
>
>The reasons are the same why they are currently using NAT with IPv4 even
>though they have enough public IPv4 address space. We have discussed
>these for ages; if my memory is correct, you are the one that convinced
>me some years ago that IPv6 NAT was unavoidable :-)
>
>Michel.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf