On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:36:08PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > Even if we ignore the address space issues entirely, we will > slide smoothly from "NATs in IPv4" to "NATs in IPv6" or, more > likely, "ever more clever NATs and NAT technologies in IPv4" > unless we are successful in nailing down the mechanisms to > accomplish the sorts of configuration and goals in IPv6 that are > causing NATs in IPv4. My sense is that we haven't done that > yet. We may even be a bit behind where we thought we were 18 > months ago. The real sad thing is that many people operating enterprise or even university networks get so used to NATs that they can't imagine to live without them anymore. They feel kind of naked without a NAT and they will likely insist on NATs when you get them to deploy IPv6. Fixing a mis-guided public opinion is close to impossible. (Still, IPv6 is worth all the efforts for those who understand the pains and prefer lots of cheap global addresses. ;-) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf