On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, shawn wilson wrote: > On Feb 22, 2011 6:10 PM, "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <h...@debian.org> > wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Paul Fraser wrote: > > > Oh, how I wish that were true... The IPv6 spec includes NAT. > > > > Which RFC? > > > Lmgtfy - 4684 and 5902 - don't know off hand, you'll have to do some reading > to see for sure...
RFC 5902 is about *thoughts* on IPv6 NAT. RFC 4684 is about something else entirely. AFAIK by the start of 2011 IPv6 NAT was still not in any RFC or serious proposal. It might well one day be, and it will be a sad day, and yet another major mistake to add to the damn big stinking pile of crap that is has been accumulating under the IPv6 rug for a while now. I still wonder what kind of weed these people are smoking when they think any leaf AS is going to accept non-provider-independent address space, though. It is the reality already in all RIRs. It will be easier to just scale the routers. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110223010957.ga23...@khazad-dum.debian.net
