I looked again. Perry Metzger still writes: | > So, I have to wonder, why is it that they have no option? | | Maybe because I hear from folks like you and others that you're | ideologically opposed to deploying v6 instead of against it for | technical reasons? Wait, it's because of *me* that IPv6 isn't a stunning success compared to NAT? I didn't realize that, when I asked the IAB to use their technical insights as a market predictor, that behind the invisible hand of the marketplace lurks little ol' me. Maybe someone should tell Paul Krugman. Sean. - -- Sean Doran, Pagan God of Market Forces <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Scott Bradner
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Michael Richardson
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Paul Ferguson
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Perry E. Metzger
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Sean Doran
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Perry E. Metzger
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Sean Doran
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Geoff Huston
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Bradley Dunn
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Jon Crowcroft
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Jon Crowcroft
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Bradley Dunn