----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com>
> If you're determined to destroy IPv6 by bringing the problems of NAT > forward with you, then, I'm fine with you remaining in your IPv4 > island. I'm willing to bet that most organizations will embrace an > internet unencumbered by the brokenness that is NAT and move forward. > I do not think that lack of NAT has been a significant barrier to IPv6 > adoption, nor do I think it will be. I won't run an edge-network that *isn't* NATted; my internal machines have no business having publicly routable addresses. No one has *ever* provided me with a serviceable explanation as to why that's an invalid view. Cheers, -- jra