>> Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have >> already seen several major corporations publicly indicate >> that they intend to use NAT with IPv6, even though they can >> get enough public address space. > Tim Chown wrote: > I assume the reason is lack of PI space, or is it a mixture > of the other commonly cited reasons? The reasons are the same why they are currently using NAT with IPv4 even though they have enough public IPv4 address space. We have discussed these for ages; if my memory is correct, you are the one that convinced me some years ago that IPv6 NAT was unavoidable :-) Michel. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf