Mark,
On Jul 2, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
People arn't bashing NAT.
Oh, please. Sure they are.
They are saying that NAT is not
a appropriate for solution in a IPv6 world. It adds a lot
more complexity than just a stateful firewall.
A stateful firewall doesn't also provides provider independence and
an ability to have a form of multi-homing without playing BGP games
or even telling your ISPs.
I am also a bit confused how a "dual stack" transition strategy to
IPv6 is going to work when the IPv4 address free pool is exhausted in
a few years without some form of NAT/ALG, but maybe that's just me.
Rgds,
-drc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf