On 11/03/2013 06:00, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 05:07:25PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote > >> NAT behind a home router is bad, too. For IPv4, it's only necessary >> because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to let everyone have a unique >> one. > > The best real reason for moving to IPV6 is address space (or lack > thereof, in the case of IPV4). The people who are truly interested in > speeding up IPV6 adoption should do their best to shut up the internet > hippies who constantly rant and rave about how "NAT is evil". Don't let > the cause get distracted by that unrelated issue. Focus on the core > issue. >
You are being over-simplistic. Lack of IPv4 address space *caused* NAT to happen, the two are inextricably intertwined. Even worse, people now have NAT conflated with all sorts of other things. Like for example NAT and security. 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. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
