On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > 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. ;-) I am in total agreement there. Redundant routes to the 6bone from my lan are are beautiful thing. Scott > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen > <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf