Mark, On Jul 2, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
People arn't bashing NAT.
Oh, please. Sure they are.
They are saying that NAT is not a appropriate for solution in a IPv6 world. It adds a lot more complexity than just a stateful firewall.
A stateful firewall doesn't also provides provider independence and an ability to have a form of multi-homing without playing BGP games or even telling your ISPs.
I am also a bit confused how a "dual stack" transition strategy to IPv6 is going to work when the IPv4 address free pool is exhausted in a few years without some form of NAT/ALG, but maybe that's just me.
Rgds, -drc _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf