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

On 9/28/07 8:46 PM, "Randy Bush" <randypsg.com>; wrote:

but, ome months back, some wiser heads in the ivtf listened and agreed
that nat-pt (no, alain, i will not be silly and let people force me to
confuse things by calling it something else), is seriously required even
though it is disgusting to us all.  thank you russ and jari; and i am
sure others will climb on the bandwagon and wave flags.


--->; I do not care so much how people want to call this, as long as it is understood that this should not only solve the v6->v4 case but also the other way round for the reasons I mentioned this morning.

As about liking NAT or not, honestly, this is totally beside the point. I have real problems to solve.