At 1:53 PM -0700 4/25/00, Paul Francis wrote: >It seems to me that the decision to just use NATv6 rather than >do a site-wide runumber will be a very easy decision to make. If that were the only issue, sure. But there are tradeoffs: is the ease of renumbering (which should be a relatively rare event) offered by a NAT box worth all the ongoing costs incurred in using NAT in the first place (more complicated, fragile network, more difficult problem diagnosis, degraded performance, weakened security, opportunity costs of not being able to run certain kinds of applications, and so on)? Steve
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? John Stracke
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Ian King
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Daniel Senie
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Richard Shockey
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Keith Moore
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Joe Touch
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? John Stracke
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Thomas Narten
- runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes... Paul Francis
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past m... Steve Deering
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past m... Keith Moore
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past m... Thomas Narten
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: P... Paul Francis
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Anthony Atkielski
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Kai Henningsen
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Leonid Yegoshin
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Bob Braden
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? J. Noel Chiappa
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Dick St.Peters
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Keith Moore