On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:39:16 EDT, John Curran said: > Now the more interesting question is: Given that we're going > to see NAT-PT in a lot of service provider architectures to make > deploying IPv6 viable, should it be considered a general enough > transition mechanism to be Proposed Standard or just be a very > widely deployed Historic protocol?
"Historic" usually refers to "stuff we've managed to mostly stamp out production use". So it boils down to "Do you think that once that camel has gotten its nose into the tent, he'll ever actually leave?". (Consider that if (for example) enough ISPs deploy that sort of migration tool, then Amazon has no incentive to move to IPv6, and then the ISP is stuck keeping it around because they don't dare turn off Amazon).
pgpuAYZyDe2Tt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
