> From: Nilsson <mansaxel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Address translation has set the state of consumer computing back
> severely.
We basically all know that. I myself am not happy with NAT either - in
fact, back in 1992 (!!) I myself wrote what was perhaps the first
"problems with NAT document". So?
> Allocating CGN-blessing address space is a clear violation of this.
You seem to be operating under the illusion that the IETF has the power to
actually do something about NAT, and more particularly, CGNAT. This is not
correct. No action by the IETF will have the slightest affect on the
deployment of CGNAT (and probably the amount of CGNAT deployment).
The notion that 'IETF blessing' will make any _real_ difference at all is
complete wrong. The IETF's blessing (or failure to do so), and an
appropriate amount of local currency, will get you a cup of coffee, as
they say...
In reality, the _only_ choice the IETF has is between:
- Deploy CGNAT with messy ad-hoc assigned addresses (squatting, whatever)
- Deploy CGNAT with an assigned address block
Given those two choices, I pick the second.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf