On 11.11.2009 06:05 Roger Marquis wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The harm is generic harm to innovation and applications architecture.
That is a theoretical harm, or rather an opinion of such. It is not
supported by the widespread use of IPv4 NAT. In fact the ubiquity of
IPv4 NAT is proof that such criticisms are baseless.
I don't consider lacking support for newer transport protocols such as
SCTP or DCCP a theoretical harm that is already caused by NATs nowadays.
Perhaps more importantly, in the past the IETF required RFC candidates to
have working implementations before being approved. IPv6 has no working
implementation because, in large part, it does not include a NAT standard.
Say what? This theorem is by far much more theoretical than the one you
blamed above.
Martin Roehricht
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
