"Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|As side note. Outside of the IETF a very coordinated and strong force
|is stating NAT business view should not be propogated with IPv6 adoption
|and NAT does not provide security and has a great cost.
The alleged security feature of NAT makes for a very convenient (and easy to
dispatch) straw man. NAT's true power for the consumer lies in its ability
to support a flavor of internetworking where none was possible before. This
capability will not be easily revoked...
|That body/force
|is the IPv6 Forum with Task Forces totally dedicated to the deployment
|of IPv6 in almost every geography in the world. The IPv6 Forum and Task
|Forces have the attention of Public Governments/Departments and Private
|Enterprise. If we are successful, and I think we will be, the idea of
|NAT for IPv6 adoption is dead.
I've read about legislation that can be construed to ban NAT. I suppose you
could try to get those "Public Governments/Departments" to step up some sort
of enforcement effort (after all, the cell phone providers got the government
to ban extensions), but short of that I don't see how you can stop the market
from serving its customers. Even if you can succeed through legal means, I
have to wonder why this is a good thing. Wouldn't it make more sense to offer
functionality in the base protocol so that users don't feel a need for NAT?
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
