Hi Bill, > Also, I note your draft is entitled "Requirements for IPv6 Enterprise > Firewalls." Frankly, no "enterprise" firewall will be taken seriously > without address-overloaded NAT. I realize that's a controversial > statement in the IPv6 world but until you get past it you're basically > wasting your time on a document which won't be useful to industry.
I disagree. While there certainly will be organisations that want such a 'feature' it is certainly not a requirement for every (I hope most, but I might be optimistic) enterprises. Cheers, Sander