> Taking your valuable points a bit further, NAT avoidance arguments aren't > likely to sell IPv6 to us large end users, because this is a problem for which > it is difficult to construct a business case that will excite the > non-technical managers who are in charge of blessing large capital expenses. this is why some of us are working on solutions for interim deployment of IPv6 without the need for large capital expenses; i.e. at a similar cost to deployment of NAT. Keith
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables David R. Conrad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... Randy Bush
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Bernard D. Aboba
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... John C Klensin
- Functionality needed in NATs ... Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables David R. Conrad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- RE: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Fleischman, Eric W
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Sean Doran
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Sean Doran
