On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 05:53:14PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: > > But I'm sorry, if NAT's become a de-facto > necessity for v6 native networks (putting aside > the need for v4/v6 NAT's), then I find the entire > premise of ipv6's utility deeply undermined. Quite > possibly fatally.
IPv6 NAT will be a reality. NAT is one method of implementing policy that many organisations are using and will continue to use, whether for IPv4 or IPv6. However, currently many organisations, home networks, etc have no choice but to use NAT. IPv6 gives choice, and that's what we should build on, so people choose IPv6 for its advantages, and use it in a way that allows those advantages to be realised (not crippled). If some would rather use IPv6 with NAT, fine, but it's their loss (indeed they may as well stick with IPv4 and NAT :). I don't feel it's productive (apart from filling mailboxes :) to have this WG getting into heavy religion about something we can't stop. There are significant challenges in providing the alternative to address the PI, multihoming, etc requirements that Mike mentions, but let's not be under illusions that we can stop IPv6 NAT (whatever our beliefs about it) by any IETF decree. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
