Re: [v6tc] I-D ACTION:draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-03.txt (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

	Alain,

On 2005-03-01, at 20.54, Alain Durand wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>> That the NAT box is v4 is clear. That it won't be upgraded is less
>> clear to me. I think that is a requirement. But that is just me.
>
> Life would be simpler if the v4 NAT was upgraded. Fact of life is that 
> I may,
> or may not.

I understand that. But we are implicitly assuming that users will be 
more willing to upgrade their PC OS than their DSL-router OS. That 
might be true, or it might not. I have no idea.

But I can see advantages with both.

> We can very well build tons of products that have this 
> tunneling/NAT-traversal
> additional functionality build in, and one of them will be activated 
> in home/soho network.
> This could be implemented into wireless bridges, VCR, PCs,.... 
> anywhere even NAT boxes!
>
> This way, we de-couple the problem of getting IPv6 into the home 
> network from
> the one of upgrading the NAT box.

Would that be a bad thing per se? Note that you are actually also 
de-coupling ISP IPv6 deployment at edge from consumer deployment 
(need). Which I thought was the most important issue...

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQiTUX6arNKXTPFCVEQIuLQCgv9v2vXQOMrZvYnZcDRmct7h791YAoNXL
5H/dbubU7cjIc0pNaSR8t4g2
=DmJd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
v6tc mailing list
v6tc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc