Re: Issue 41: Mandate NAT prevention if not doing NAT-T?

I think we can close this one. Pasi tells us that there's
a possibility that even in IPv6 some of the translation
schemes could benefit from this. Even so, it may be
quite reasonable to make the IPv6 default on NATs
stricter than in IPv4. This seems to be supported by
Mohan and Francis (and myself), so with the small
number of folks that have participated this discussion,
its propbably as close to consensus as we are going to
get.

So, I think we can make the document leave the
middle ground away from v6 but allowing it in v4.
("NAT preventation SHOULD be enabled by default
in IPv6 if NAT traversal is not enabled.", or words
to that effect.)

--Jari