Hi,
We've been running a NAT64/DNS64 setup at TREX Tampere Region Exchange
for over a year now and I'd like to submit the following experience for
your draft:
IPv6 Privacy Extensions are a big problem with stateless NAT64. A single
device with priv exts enabled will use up several IPv4
With my co-author hat on, would it help to include a description of what IE
supports in Section 3. Web Browsers?
Bob
On Jul 6, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
1) FYI, the deadline we gave the URI list to comment on this has just
passed, with only one (positive) reply.
Aleksi == Aleksi Suhonen aleksi.suho...@tut.fi writes:
Aleksi Within an hour, all the IPv4 addresses in the pool for our
Aleksi NAT64 were registered to this one device.
Do I understand that you attempt to provide a single IPv4 address 1:1
with a an internal IPv6 address? (NAT vs NAPT)
I'd be happy with that, or a small appendix. Dave, is it documented anywhere?
Regards
Brian
On 2012-07-06 15:00, Bob Hinden wrote:
With my co-author hat on, would it help to include a description of what IE
supports in Section 3. Web Browsers?
Bob
On Jul 6, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Brian
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 6:01 AM
To: Dave Thaler
Cc: Ole Trøan; ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List; 6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org Chairs;
draft-ietf-6man-uri-zon...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG [second]
It's documented on the page in my original email.
However it's not sufficient. Remember my second piece of feedback was
that the document contradicts itself, implying the specified syntax supports
cut and paste, but then doesn't provide a section updating RFC 4007 section 11.
If the document
