Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:32:04 -0400

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

    > I don't see what you're getting at. the outside sites may be running v4
    > with a limited number of external addresses ... if they are running v6
    > they will have plenty of external addresses.

Not external *IPv4* addresses, they won't - which is what kind of addresses
they need to communicate with other IPv4 sites.

    > if the remote sites are *only* running IPv4, having v6 locally won't
    > help much. ... it's generally true that if you're talking between a
    > v6-only and v4-only host you have to accept the limitations of NAT.

That's the point I've been trying to make.

	Noel

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:42:11 -0400

> they need to communicate with other IPv4 sites.

IPv4 vs. IPv6 isn't an either/or - it's quite reasonable for a site
to run IPv4 (with NAT if necessary) alongside IPv6.  I expect that
most sites already on the net will do exactly this - use IPv4 with 
NAT for traditional applications that NAT supports and use IPv6 for 
the other ones.

Keith