Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> I'm not sure what you mean by routing above. Are you suggesting there's
> some negative externality in that NAT makes the routing infrastructure
> more complicated? If so, what is it?

If you're multihomed and your route changes, your address
changes.  (Yes, this happens).

I am profoundly weirded out by reading an IAB member argue
that something that's got broad market acceptance is
tautologically okay.  I agree that there's a real problem
here that NAT is trying to solve, but I certainly wouldn't
treat it as a given that NAT is the best, or even a good,
solution.  

Melinda


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]