RE: RES: ReN: IPv6 tranisition issues

Folks,

Lets just listen to Christians mail.  Me included.

No comment from me at this point.   I would not advocate the development =
of state machines in code to support NAT at this point with IPv6 so close=
 though.

Regards,
/jim

=20


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcelo Barbosa Lima [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 5:21 AM
> To: Bound, Jim; Fred L. Templin
> Cc: Keith Moore; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RES: RES: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues
>=20
>=20
>=20
>   Folks,
>=20
>    I think that Keith=B4s answer did not offend to me. I want=20
> only a good debate about IPv6=B4s subjects. I really believe=20
> that is possible to write code STATEFUL to NAT where whatever=20
> application can be supported. I believe that all=20
> connections/sessions related to one application can be=20
> inpesctioned (in application layer)and port numbers and IP=20
> address translated like in simple FTP.  Of this way, NAT can=20
> provide support to many applications more complex. AGAIN,=20
> stateful NAT with application sense can be implemented to=20
> support this application. I really dont see reasons to that=20
> one NAT applications-specific module can not be implemented.=20
> In Linux, for example, exists IRC, Netmeeting and ICQ modules=20
> to masquerading. I also believe that few implementation do=20
> it. My apologies for my "irresponsible comments about NAT". I=20
> only thougth that it was a free debate between civilized=20
> people. Best Regards,
>=20
> 			Marcelo.
>=20
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: Bound, Jim [mailto:[email protected]]
> Enviada em: segunda-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2003 17:47
> Para: Fred L. Templin
> Cc: Keith Moore; Marcelo Barbosa Lima; [email protected];=20
> [email protected]
> Assunto: RE: RES: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues
>=20
>=20
> Hi Fred,
>=20
> Missed the light part.  My apologies.  It is just some are so=20
> rude in email I cannot help but wish them the worst from that=20
> view.  And I do.
>=20
> /jim
>=20
> =20
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fred L. Templin [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:35 PM
> > To: Bound, Jim
> > Cc: Keith Moore; Marcelo Barbosa Lima; [email protected];=20
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: RES: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues
> >=20
> >=20
> > Hi Jim,
> >=20
> > Bound, Jim wrote:
> > > Fred,
> > >=20
> > > I did not think Keiths mail was insulting.
> >=20
> > Exactly why I prefaced my note with "No offense intended";=20
> just trying=20
> > to make light of an ongoing discussion that has (to me)=20
> become almost=20
> > humerous by its cyclical nature. (Ever see the movie=20
> "Groundhog Day"?)
> >=20
> > Perhaps this was inappropriate, and hopefully has come at no
> > expense to Keith (apologies if it has). I certainly didn't=20
> > intend to single Keith out as being solely responsible for=20
> > perpetuating the thread.
> >=20
> > Thanks,
> >=20
> > Fred
> > [email protected]
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
>=20