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]

 



> From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

> ...
> the reason I point out the flaws with NAT is not that I think we can get
> rid of them in v4. it's because some people are still of the belief that
> NATs are mostly harmless and that we should not only permit them
> into v6, but extend our architecture to embrace them.  that's simply
> insane.

The current combatants seemed to fail to notice a long time ago when
those who started this thread by claiming NAT boxes are clearly good
and desirable things were convinced, or more likely, went elsewhere
to peddle their views.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com


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