----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Hart" <daveh...@gmail.com>
> Sure, there are folks out there who believe NAT gives them benefits. > Some are actually sane (small multihomers avoiding BGP). You stand > out as insane for attempting to redefine "transparent" to mean > "inbound communication is possible after negotatiation with multiple > levels of NAT". > > > However, it does not invalidate end to end NAT as a counter > > argument against people insisting on IPv6 so transparent with > > a lot of legacy NAT used by people who loves it. > > > > That is, end to end transparency can not be a reason to > > insist on IPv6. > > It certainly is, for those of us not arguing by redefinition. Ah, you're on the "I should be required to allow direct outside connection to my interior machines if I want to be connected to the Internet" crowd. Got it. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274