reading this, it's hard to escape the impression that you are out to make the IPv6 Internet as dysfunctional as the IPv4 Internet.
Roger Marquis wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
