I don't think that the ability to have multiple servers on the same port
is significant enough to trigger a migration; there would need to be a
more significant change. Bottom line is that on my single IP at home, I
host all the services I want, use H.323, peer-to-peer apps, and whatever
else I please and yes it does work.
But only because application and NAT box builders are bending over backwards to support it.
I have to say that given the recent trends and developments, I am now on
the fence WRT joining the camp that says that NAT is unavoidable for v6
Where is this camp hiding?
so we might as well make it work. I have not made my mind yet but if things continue the way they are now you will likely find me developing a NATv6 box this time next year.
When I sent you http://www.bgpexpert.com/darkside.mp3 a while ago that was a joke, you know.
I think adding NAT to the mix in IPv6 makes no sense at all, as NAT in itself doesn't provide any useful functionality, it's only a crutch to get around lack of address space (which isn't an issue in IPv6) or renumbering (which is less of an issue in IPv6).
It would certainly be possible to rearrange the IP architecture in such a way that NAT fits in. (There are numerous technologies where address-like fields change in transit.) However, this means a significant number of changes in many places, not unlike the changes necessary to support IPv6...
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
