> Hmm... Depends on one's perspective. Do not underestimate the
> timeliness of a solution. Timeliness is operational reality.
I'm very much aware of this. timelinesss is what gives you
(or denies you) the opportunity to deploy a new technology.
but just because something is timely (in the sense that
there is an opportunity to deploy it) does not mean that
deploying it leaves the world in a better place.
> It could have been catastrphic had we not had a timely solution
> with no addresses to issue. NAT is the reason we have had this much
> time to work on IPng.
it's not at all clear whether NAT provided additional time for
IPng development or whether such time was really needed. IPv6 was
largely developed before NAT enjoyed significant deployment, and
arguably NAT has delayed adoption of IPv6. and because of the NAT
deployment it is now somewhat "untimely" to deploy applications like
IP telephony. whereas if IPv6 had been adopted a bit earlier
(because NAT had not filled the vacuum, so to speak) IP telephony
would work just fine with it.
of course, IPv6 might have moved along slowly even without NAT.
but it would probably have moved faster had NATs not existed.
best thing I can say about NAT is that it motivated me to work on 6to4.
Keith
