A few comments:
<I guess my point, ultimately, is that the user community is going to
<pick their own poison. They don't find NAT to be very objectionable,
<so if you offer something that is *to them* worse than NAT (i.e.
<renumbering), you will have effectively promoted a NAT solution.
since that re-numering can be done automatically it is not a problem in
ipv6. This is actually one of IPv6's nice feature for an ISP for future
Merger's&Acquisition's.
You can
- automatically autoconfigure your host on your subnet via neighbor
discovery
- all router in the backbone can be re-numbered using a router renumbering
scheme
this cant be done with NAT and how are you going to solve overlapping
private address domain when you merge them? You will have to manually
configure those overlapping host-addreses which is very timeconsuming.
And an other comments:
Is the traditional that it breaks the end-to-end model and makes the
services assymetric!
- mobility (roaming dont work), qos, security etc
/Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
