Dual stack vs NAT-PT
draft-durand-v6ops-dualstack-vs-natpt-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Alain Durand | ||
| Last updated | 2003-02-24 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Outside of the IETF community, lot of people think that IPv4 to IPv6 transition consist merely at solving the problem of how does a v4 box communicate with a v6 box and vice versa. Within the IETF, the dual stack approach has long been defined. There is an ongoing discussion to understand if translation with tools like [NAT-PT] is absolutly needed to enable IPv6 nodes to communicate with an IPv4 node or if we can/should mandate IPv6 nodes to also deploy an IPv4 stack if/when they needs to communicate with IPv4 nodes. This draft is aimed at clarifying the discussion without taking side by studying in 3 cases the implications of mandating a dual-stack versus the implications of deploying a translation device.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)