Subject: RE: (ngtrans) W.G. Last Call on "Shipworm: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs"

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:16:32 -0700

> I disagree with your characterization of some of these as requiring 
> relatively short connections - for instance instant messaging systems
> and gnutella are often run for days at a time, or even indefinitely. 
> 
> I also disagree with the desirability of providing an IPv6 solution
> that only works for relatively short connections.  

This is a red herring. The protocol is designed to maintain the
availability of the address for as long as the machine and the NAT are
up. If your set-up is permanent, then your address will in fact be
permanent. We are certainly not going out of our way to ensure that the
address is short lived.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:37:40 -0400

> permanent. We are certainly not going out of our way to ensure that the

of course not.  but a product that provides no liklihood of a stable
IPv6 address may not be much better than a NAT.  both of them are
purporting to provide general purpose Internet access without really 
doing so.