I second the sigh FWIW. And I do not share Dave's view on IPv6 NAT. What are you asking to be demonstrated? IPv6 NAT?
========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) 484-962-0060 e) [email protected] o) 609-377-6594 w) www.comcast6.net ========================================= -----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:34 PM To: Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> Cc: Dave Taht <[email protected]>, Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Mark Townsley <[email protected]>, Jari Arkko <[email protected]>, John Jason Brzozowski <[email protected]>, "[email protected] Group" <[email protected]>, David Lamparter <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando >Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Dave Taht <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I still find the dynamicism required by renting ipv6 addresses to so >> impact in so many aspects of the "sane usage of stuff like >> printers", and naming, and the security model as to *demand* ipv6 >> nat in the home... >> >> >> Sigh. > >Sigh all you like, but I share Dave's skepticism that ISP's renumbering >my prefix >willy-nilly and it just sort of works with naming -- including addresses >squirrelled >away in places they ought not be -- is going to work any time soon. I >don't like to >think that NAT is inevitable but frankly the people in this working group >don't get >to vote on that. > >Speaking to the title of this thread: has anybody actually demonstrated >such a thing >end to end? It strikes me as Frankensteinian when you get all of the body >parts bolted >together. > >Mike _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
