On Aug 01 2008, at 08:53, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
problem
The problem is that the spin of the article is that NATs are being
added to IPv6 itself (which is a misleading statement when taken at
face value, actually surprising, hence perceived as sensational), when
in reality they are being added (put back, really) as a deployment
strategy for interconnecting IPvNAT and IPv6. In hindsight, this
approach should have been visible from the questions e.g. in
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072109-nat-housley-qna.html
Having said that, what I've seen of the articles is quite solid
journalism, and I've seen far worse.
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf