On 9/29/07 11:10 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran@mail.com> wrote:
The irony is that the I* rationale for moving NAT-PT to historic was "to restore the end-to-end transparency of the Internet"
===> John,
With all due respect, I will recommend you to read 4966, reasons to move NAT-PT to historical
Abstract
This document discusses issues with the specific form of IPv6-IPv4 protocol translation mechanism implemented by the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) defined in RFC 2766. These issues are sufficiently serious that recommending RFC 2766 as a general purpose transition mechanism is no longer desirable, and this document recommends that the IETF should reclassify RFC 2766 from Proposed Standard to Historic status.
- Alain.