Hi, On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 02:26:32PM +0000, Florian Weimer wrote:
and none of them support the modifications necessary to "help the NAT gateway", I can't see how this would be a step forward.
But this is far out of scope for RIPE APWG anyway
Is it?
Yes.
RIPE could promote 6to4 adoption (similary to what is done for ENUM). Perhaps it's more of a topic for the IPv6 WG, but I don't think this is IETF or ICANN material.
This is a technical draft. RIPE hands out IP addresses according to need, and "need" is somewhat defined in the framework of IETF technology. As long as there is no IETF consensus on this sort of NAT (and implementations are widely available!), it makes no sense for policy to be adapted to it. (It's *especially* off-topic for the IPv6 WG, as this is purely about "not using IPv6 but sticking with IPv4 NAT for ever"). Maybe you misread the draft document? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279