On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 22:34, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: > ----- 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 > > Quite simply, its called Tragedy of the Commons. Everyone else has to work harder to provide you services if you are using something which breaks end to end connectivity, which costs everyone else money. The protocol designers are making a stand against this for the good of the "commons".
-Blake
