Christian Vogt wrote:
I would like to notify you about a revision of the NAT design analysis that I had presented at the NAT66 BOF at IETF 74. The revision addresses the feedback I had received, and adds the missing references to the document. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vogt-address-translation-harmfulness Further comments are welcome.
In the Acknowledgment section you forgot to mention the ILECs who no doubt sponsored this piece of rubbish. Those would be the same ILECs who will profit mightily from IPv4 address exhaustion, and who would like to also profit from non-portable and non-private addresses. Not to fear though. There is zero chance NAT will be any less popular in IPv6 than it is in IPv4. This is because the market demands NAT. That market is defined by those of us whose lives are greatly simplified by NAT i.e., about 95% of systems and network managers. Some of us were network managers before there was such a thing as NAT and you can bet we will not allow that to happen again. It will not happen because we will not purchase services or products that do not support NAT. Good the with your RFC, though I fear it will substantially limit your employability should you be imprudent enough to list it on your resume. Roger Marquis _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
