Iljitsch,
Tunneling is great, but it requires to allocate an IPv4 address... that I may not have in the first place. - Alain. On 9/28/07 4:39 PM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 28-sep-2007, at 6:25, Jari Arkko wrote: > >>> >> And make it works both way, v4 to v6 and v6 to v4. >>> >> And also don¹t call it NAT-PT. That name is dead. > >> > For what it is worth, this is one of the things that I want >> > to do. I don't want to give you an impression that NAT-PT++ >> > will solve all the IPv6 transition issues; I suspect dual stack >> > is a better answer. But nevertheless, the IETF needs to >> > produce a revised spec for the translation case. Fred and >> > I are organizing an effort to do this. > > The problem with NAT-PT (translating between IPv6 and IPv4 similar to > IPv4 NAT) was that it basically introduces all the NAT ugliness that > we know in IPv4 into the IPv6 world. Rather than "solving" this issue > by trying harder, I would like to take the IETF to adopt the > following approach: > > 1. for IPv6-only hosts with modest needs: use an HTTPS proxy to relay > TCP connections > > 2. for hosts that are connected to IPv6-only networks but with needs > that can't be met by 1., obtain real IPv6 connectivity tunneled on- > demand over IPv6 > > The advantage of 1. is that proxies and applications that can use > proxies are already in wide use. The advantage of 2. is that it > provides real IPv4 connectivity without compromises. Different hosts > (even on the same subnet) can have different IPv4 connectivity (NAT/ > no NAT, firewalled/unfirewalled) without having to provision the > complete path between the user and the edge of the network > specifically for that type of connectivity. And no lost addresses for > subnetting etc. >
