Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I assert that regardless of whether NAT66 is a good or a bad thing,
> anything that layers on IPv6 must be NAT66 tolerant.
Because IPv6 is a bad thing, there should be nothing on IPv6.
> Observation: Without NAT44 the internet would already have run out of
> address space.
Observation: With NAT44 and unicast class E (and part of D) the
IPv4 Internet would not run out of address space for the time
being.
> I think that it is
> now very clear that the IPv6 transition will take at least another
> decade
Considering that development of IPv6 did not take so many years,
it is better to have another IPng which is more easily deployable
than IPv6.
> If we accept these two observations we arrive at a proof that NAT66 is
> unavoidable.
Only if IPv6 were worth deploying.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
