An RFC is an RFC when it is an RFC (Was: Question Re: best practices)

[Austin Schutz]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Thus, for the hypothetical OP's question (which sounded suspiciously 
> like a troll anyway) to get into fooling with gear that implements a
> draft standard is going to be very costly, and nobody should do it
> unless they can realize an immediate financial gain for doing so, that
> will pay back the investment - because for sure, your going to be buying
> more gear when the draft standard is changed in the future.  While a
> handful of content providers might be able to answer Yes to this, the
> general public will not be able to.
> 
> Ted
> 

I have better things to do with my time than troll. It is not trolling 
to ask what people are actually doing to solve this problem. I am not 
particularly interested in the political ramifications of NAT vs. ... 
well vs. what, really? What is the alternate proposal?

Using NAT of any sort to solve this problem is admittedly ugly, and in 
many cases problematic. But if there is a specification for it, at least 
it can be implemented in a uniform manner, and I (personally) don't mind 
trying out some solution which may be implemented only on development 
friendly systems (e.g. Unix).

Again, specifically not trying to troll, I would like to know what the 
alternative proposal is. Simply saying "start with the Internet having 
v6 client support" is not a rational answer. Today's Internet clients 
don't support v6.

Austin