> > the reason I point out the flaws with NAT is not that I think we can > > get rid of them in v4. it's because some people are still of the > > belief that NATs are mostly harmless and that we should not only > > permit them into v6, but extend our architecture to embrace them. > > Keith, that's not the only reason, and you know it. You want to point out to > people how screwed up NAT's are in the hope that they will be more inclined > to move *from* IPv4+NAT *to* your perfect future, one in which we once again > have a global namespace.
Noel, I have immense respect for you. But even as smart as you are - when you try to guess what my motivations are, you are likely to be wrong enough that you'll misrepresent them. > IPv4+NAT, as ugly as it is, is the future. Now can we please stop sticking > our heads in the sand, and start dealing with that? We *are* dealing with that. And the fix is called using IPv6 alongside IPv4+NAT. Because all of the other fixes are even harder to deploy and less likely to work. Keith
