>>>>> "Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hallam-Baker,> The core assumption here seems to be that NAT is a
Hallam-Baker,> bad thing so lets get rid of NAT rather than trying
Hallam-Baker,> to make NAT work.
I disagree with this characterization of the document. I think it is
more like we have existing NAT mechanisms; we have strategies for
making them work. Dual stack nodes is a better way forward than
creating a new NAT mechanism to move from IPV6 to IPV4 and trying to
make that (with a different set of problems than traditional NAT)
work.
I don't think this document is anti-NAT. Can you help me understand
why I'm wrong or reconsider how much of your argument still applies?
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf