Bernard,
Exactly. That is why 6to4 came out the way it did - it offers a way
for a NATted IPv4 site to introduce non-NATted IPv6 without losing
anything or throwing away anything.
There are RFCs explaining the issues with NAT technically and objectively.
I don't see why this generates comments about anti-NAT religion.
It's obvious when you read those RFCs and think about P2P computing
that NAT is a problem. If we don't avoid that problem in IPv6
we will have failed as engineers.
Brian
Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
> >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.
