>> i suggest that, for most of us, there are more useful and concrete major >> direct goals of ipv6 than anti-nat religion. > > And in fact, the anti-NAT religion hurts deployment of IPv6 > because it is hard to get customers to throw away things > they have already bought. > > I would also suggest that the rapidity at which NAT is > being deployed for IPv4 suggests that we need to think about > how to deploy IPv6 in an environment where IPv4 NATs are prevalent. > Thus, it is unlikely that IPv6 will displace IPv4 NATs; tather > it will augment them. and, if we can make v6 very attractive (left as exercise to student) then its success may relieve some perceived need for nats. but there are far more useful goals to achieve by making it attractive and deployed. and we should focus on them, not the anti-nat obsession. [ unless, of course, we think that there is enough left of our foot to keep shooting at it. ] randy
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Melinda Shore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Randy Bush
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Randy Bush
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Robert G. Ferrell
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Ed Gerck
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables V Guruprasad
- RE: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Bernard Aboba
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Randy Bush
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables David R. Conrad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Randy Bush
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Bernard D. Aboba
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables John C Klensin
- Functionality needed in NATs (Re: [midcom] WG scop... Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables David R. Conrad