> From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
>>> the reason I point out the flaws with NAT is .. 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.
>> Keith, that's not the only reason, and you know it. You want to point
>> out to people how screwed up NAT's are in the hope that they will be
>> more inclined to move *from* IPv4+NAT *to* your perfect future, one in
>> which we once again have a global namespace.
> when you try to guess what my motivations are, you are likely to be
> wrong enough that you'll misrepresent them.
OK, so I'm wrong - and you have nothing to say against NAT if we are only
proposing to use IPv4+NAT, and have no intention of adding NAT to IPv6?
Noel