> It seems to me that the decision to just use NATv6 rather than > do a site-wide runumber will be a very easy decision to make. Actually, if your assumption is that NATv6 is better than IPv6 with renumbering, then IPv4 and NATv4 was good enough to start with and there was need to move to IPv6 in the first place. However, many people fear that NATs just won't cut it as a long-term solution, with a number of different reasons why this is so (impact on security and applications, operational and administrative costs, etc.). But if NATv4 doesn't cut it, I don't see how NATv6 between IPv6 sites cuts it either. Thomas
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Ian King
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Daniel Senie
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Richard Shockey
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Keith Moore
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Joe Touch
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? John Stracke
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Thomas Narten
- runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes ... Paul Francis
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past m... Steve Deering
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mi... Keith Moore
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mi... Thomas Narten
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Pa... Paul Francis
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Anthony Atkielski
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Kai Henningsen
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Leonid Yegoshin
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Bob Braden
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? J. Noel Chiappa
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Dick St.Peters
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Keith Moore
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Shankar Agarwal
- Fw: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Anthony Atkielski