Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I assert that regardless of whether NAT66 is a good or a bad thing, > anything that layers on IPv6 must be NAT66 tolerant. Because IPv6 is a bad thing, there should be nothing on IPv6. > Observation: Without NAT44 the internet would already have run out of > address space. Observation: With NAT44 and unicast class E (and part of D) the IPv4 Internet would not run out of address space for the time being. > I think that it is > now very clear that the IPv6 transition will take at least another > decade Considering that development of IPv6 did not take so many years, it is better to have another IPng which is more easily deployable than IPv6. > If we accept these two observations we arrive at a proof that NAT66 is > unavoidable. Only if IPv6 were worth deploying. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf