> I thought we were all trying to discourage NAT in IPv6. Clearly, NAT > solves the problem ... while introducing 1000 new ones. :-/
Clearly some have been trying to discourage NAT in IPv6 ensuring there'll be a 1000 problems if anyone tries. > I mean, yeah, it'd be great if we could mandate /48 ... but I just can't > see it as likely to happen. If people are supposed to have a /48 then the allocation rules should say that's what they will get. It may be xmas but it's not wise to rely on the benevolence of ISPs brandon
