Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> writes:
> > > they would switch if they had alternatives available. but people
> > > like you keep claiming that alternatives aren't needed because the
> > > market has spoken.
> >
> > Nonsense. I'd love to see an alternative. Obviously, NATS have costs
> > and a solution that reduced those costs would be better. What
> > alternative, exactly, are you offering?
>
> 6to4 is one. and before Christian wrote his shipworm/teredo proposal I
> had my own proposal to tunnel v6 over v4+NAT. there's also my draft
> describing my best effort to produce a mechanism that would allow v4
> apps to tolerate NATs and still have general connectivity. (I tried,
> but it turns out that it's far easier to support 6to4 and/or teredo)
>
> so it's not like I haven't actually been working on solving the problem.
I didn't say you haven't been. So, my question at this point is:
(1) If these solutions aren't available, why not?
(2) If they are available and people don't want them, why not?
Rather than complaining about NAT, it seems like we would be better
served assuming that people have reasons for making the choices
they have and trying to accomodate those.
Anyway, I've said all I have to say about this topic. I'll
let other people on this thread have the last word if they
like.
-Ekr
--
[Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com]
http://www.rtfm.com/