Subject: (ngtrans) call for discussion on NAT traversial

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:31:21 -0700

Next IETF in London, we (chairs)  would like to organise a discussion
on IPv6 tunnels that cross IPv4 NATs.
We already have 2 drafts from Christian Huitema
draft-ietf-ngtrans-natreq4ipv4-00.txt
draft-huitema-shipworm-00.txt

Keith Moore had also something a while ago.

We would like to organise a 20-30 mins sessions on the topic.
If you have ideas that you would like to present on the topic,
(a publish draft is not required), please sent Tony, Bob & me
an email.

	- Alain.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:09:42 +0300 (EEST)

> draft-ietf-ngtrans-natreq4ipv4-00.txt

You mean draft-ietf-ngtrans-natreq4ipv6-00.txt :-)

> draft-huitema-shipworm-00.txt

Is this something new, not yet published?  I couldn't find any references
to it anywhere.

> (a publish draft is not required), please sent Tony, Bob & me

Well, a crux here is whether the mechanisms are needed for the user to
tunnel IPv6 into NAT regardless of what ISP does (e.g. using a protocol
that can traverse NAT after a fashion already, like UDP, instead of IP
protocol 41), or whether "ISP-driven" approach is acceptable.

If it can be assumed that "ISP Is the Good Guy" and actually wants to
enable ipv6 if it's in any way possible, then there are various options
for this.. but I fear this may not be valid in practise for a long time
yet.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords