Quality Quorum wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Aleksey wrote: BTW, I prepared a draft which spells out NAT6
If you're tired of life, there probably are better ways to go than being lynched by a crowd of IETFers.
Ever heard about SNMP wars? I highly doubt that by now there is so much fire left anywhere in IETF :)
Speaking seriously, it seems to me that people underestimate both how easy is to do NAT6 even without any official blessing and how hard is to fight against market forces.
So, it is quite possible that nobody would ever want NAT6, but if there is a desire it will be unstoppable. Moreover, the only result of special measures making NAT6 harder to do will result in more starving companines trying to differenciate themselves by providing workarounds.
IMHO being NAT6-neutral/NAT6-friendly would at least reduce its commercial attractivness (similar to drug legalization).
I'm pretty sure this would cripple any (reasonable) end-to-end assumptions people may want to make with programming IPv6 apps.
Please, think of your children when asking us to support NAT. We're trying to make the Internet a system which will support the applications we need in 2020, not 1999.
I'm not advocating "fight against the tide", but initially IPv6 can be marketed as better than IPv4 because of NAT4. Once IPv6 starts taking off, then it's our job to educate people about NAT being evil.
We shouldn't be accomodating it now.
Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
