Subject: [NSIS] NATFW NSLP support for NAT-PT (IPv4 to IPv6 translation)

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:12:38 +0200

Dear all,

The draft -11 of the NATFW NSLP is somewhat unspecified about the  
usage of
the IPv4 to IPv6 (and vice versa) transition mechanism NAT Protocol  
Translation
(NAT-PT, RFC 2766). While in the past the NSLP had some text  
specifying how
the NSLP should handle NAT-PT, it has been removed. One of the  
reasons is
the draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt- 
to-exprmntl-03.txt

The question is where to go with NAT-PT. Should the NATFW NSLP support
NAT-PT or not? Probably, this is requires more a political answer  
rather than
a technical!

   Martin

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 13:49:15 +0300

>The draft -11 of the NATFW NSLP is somewhat unspecified about 
>the usage of the IPv4 to IPv6 (and vice versa) transition 
>mechanism NAT Protocol Translation (NAT-PT, RFC 2766). While 
>in the past the NSLP had some text specifying how the NSLP 
>should handle NAT-PT, it has been removed. One of the reasons 
>is the draft 
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-
>to-exprmntl-03.txt
>
>The question is where to go with NAT-PT. Should the NATFW NSLP 
>support NAT-PT or not? Probably, this is requires more a 
>political answer rather than a technical!

Well, I'd say that we don't need to address NAT-PT, unless anyone in
the audience (in the mailing list) is specifically interested in it.

John