Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

[Alain Durand <alain_durand () cable comcast com>]

On 9/29/07 11:10 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran () mail com> wrote:
> The irony is that the I* rationale for moving NAT-PT to historic
> was "to restore the end-to-end transparency of the Internet"
>
>
> ===> John,
>
> With all due respect, I will recommend you to read 4966, reasons to move
> NAT-PT to historical
>
> Abstract
>
>    This document discusses issues with the specific form of IPv6-IPv4
>    protocol translation mechanism implemented by the Network Address
>    Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) defined in RFC 2766.  These
>    issues are sufficiently serious that recommending RFC 2766 as a
>    general purpose transition mechanism is no longer desirable, and this
>    document recommends that the IETF should reclassify RFC 2766 from
>    Proposed Standard to Historic status.
>
>  - Alain.