[address-policy-wg] Mandating NAT toward the final /8

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090716/8cc53be5/attachment.sig>