Thus spake "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu> > > | site local is, in fact, an addition to the IP architecture and > > | that is what is causing the controversy. > > > > No, it isn't. It is a cleaned up replacement for 1918 addresses. > > which by itself is reason enough to kill it. I detest NAT and private addresses nearly as much as you do, but the simple matter is that many, if not most, people are going to continue using these technologies with IPv6 whether the IETF standardizes it or not. Today, NAT is a solution to political and business problems, even if IPv6 fixes the technical problems NAT was originally invented to solve. The IETF cannot eliminate these political and business problems by fiat, nor can it prevent vendors from selling IPv6 NAT devices. You are fighting the good fight, but you will surely lose nonetheless. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking