On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:22:39AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote > You are being over-simplistic. > > Lack of IPv4 address space *caused* NAT to happen, the two are > inextricably intertwined.
Agreed. But we shouldn't be pointing out that NAT has partially solved the problem, and giving people false hope that NAT will solve the shortage problem forever. We should be pounding away on the fact that we're running out of IP addresses... period... end of story. If people ask about NAT, then mention that the undersupply will be so bad that even NAT won't help. > Even worse, people now have NAT conflated with all sorts of other > things. Like for example NAT and security. That's why I wwant to avoid that propaganda battle. It's been lost already. Deal with it. Don't waste time and effort on it. Put your effort into pounding away on a simple issue that people do understand... we're running out of IP addresses. > NAT is the context of an IPv6 discussion is *very* relevant, it's > one of the points you have to raise to illustrate what bits inside > people's heads needs to be identified and changed. > > Until you change the content of people's heads, IPv6 is just not > going to happen. I disagree with you there. IPV6 adoption will be driven by shortage of addresses, which people can understand. It will not be accomplished by sermons about the evils of NAT whilst people's eyes glaze over. "A preachment, dear friends, you are about to receive, is on John Barleycorn, Nicotine, and the Temptations of NAT". And if it comes down to it, I'd much rather have IPV6 with IPV6 NAT being available, rather than no IPV6. -- Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
