> => It has a better chance of working this time because: > - No one expects addresses to become a scarce resource in our > lifetime anyway > > - I haven't seen any plans by ISPs to charge based on > the number of addresses. > > So, I don't think it's quite the same problem as with > RFC1918. >
you're still missing the point. NAT doesn't cause this particular problem; use of limited scope addresses causes this problem regardless of whether NAT is used. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
