On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:10 AM, Michel Py wrote: >>> Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> The interesting question, of course, is whether (and if so, when) the > IETF >>> will deign to notice this reality - or will it continue to prefer to > stick >>> its collective fingers in its ears and keep going > 'neener-neener-neener'. > >> Keith Moore wrote: >> Do you actually have a point to make, Noel, or are you just >> taking pot shots at IETF again? > > Look who's talking. Despite a brilliant mind and sometimes significant > contributions, you are one of the main persons behind the failure of > IPv6. The living example of the IETF ivory tower. > > Has it occurred to you that, if it was not for your blind opposition to > NAT, we could be living in a world of 6to4 implemented in the ubiquitous > NAT box? Why do you think I proposed 6to4 in the first place? There was no vendor interest in putting 6to4 in NAT boxes. For that matter, I also proposed a mechanism to allow applications to better cope with NAT between v4 and v6 (and by extension between v4 and v4) by making the NATs explicitly controlled by the endpoints. There was no interest in that either. > Look what you have done: not only we have more NATv4 than ever, but now > we also have NAT46, NAT64, NAT464...whatever and all of these with heavy > ALG layers to make it more palatable. I think you give me far more "credit" than I'm due. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf