> 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? I'm certainly not going to pretend that NAT doesn't have problems - and when people argue that NAT is mostly harmless, I'm likely to try to counter that idea because IMHO it's dangerous misinformation. But I recognize that NAT is here to stay in IPv4, that people will continue to use IPv4+NAT for the apps that it works for, and that for some users, this is currently 100% of their apps. For now those users have little incentive to support IPv6, though I think those users might be encouraged to adopt IPv6 in addition to IPv4+NAT as IPv6 enables new apps that can't run on IPv4+NAT. Which is why I've done some work to try to make the barrier to adopting IPv6 on an existing IPv4 network as low as possible. I think we might get rid of IPv4+NAT eventually, simply because sites will find it easier to maintain one set of addresses, filters, etc., rather than two. But I see this as a long way away. my main goals are: - combat the idea that NAT as a concept makes good sense from an architectural point of view - keep IPv6 safe for distributed and/or p2p apps.