That sounds like running away from the problem ..... U have enough IP addresses so not to worry about it ... Deployment of that is going to take some time .... and how many ISP's provide that ...??? IPV6 is running away from current problem .... not the solution ...... Vivek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu> To: "J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Netmeeting - NAT issue > > Oh, piffle. NAT's don't "harm the Internet", any more than a host of other > > things: > > the fact that other things do harm doesn't mean that NATs don't also > do harm, or that the harm done by NAT is somehow lessened or excused. > and IMHO most of the other things you mentioned do less harm than NATs, > though I agree there are a lot of folks out there who are getting away > with screwing the net. > > > All of which leads me to a simple conclusion: one big reason that you and any > > number of other people are upset about NAT's has nothing to do with their > > technical shortcomings. Rather, what gets people so aggravated is that they > > are killing off the "preferred" alternative. > > The reason I'm upset about NATs is that they make it difficult to > build distributed and peer-to-peer apps, and they encourage a model > where the net is centrally controlled (not by a single center, but > by a relatively small number of providers who control the center). > > I didn't get seriously interested in IPv6 until I realized that they > were the most likely viable solution to the NAT problem. In hindsight > I would have done IPv6 somewhat differently. But it's possible to start > IPv6, make applications work with it, and maybe fix a few things about > v6 along with way as people learn more about its shortcomings. NATs, > on the other hand, are completely intractable. e.g. even if you can > come up with a better solution to the firewall access problem (and > I think that's possible, though we're nowhere close to that now), as > long as you have NATs you're still stuck with the problems inherent > in a partitioned address space. > > Keith