Margaret, On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 13:04, Margaret Wasserman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's be careful, though, that we don't redo the work that was already done > in the v6ops WG to identify the benefits of NAT and the alternatives/gaps in > IPv6. > > I agree, but I think it is time to do a summary of those findings and a quick survey from the field to see what else is perceived as being needed. I still have not seen anything that goes beyond RFC 4864, and apparently (from discussion in v6OPs and elsewhere) there is a gap in what we wrote in 4864 and what people think they need for the day to day. Eric
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
