Hi Brian,
> Welcome to NATv6.
It's our job to stop that happening.
I agree, and I actually consider our job to be even bigger
than this...
We need to create the technologies and policies that will enable a
globally-addressable, "flat" IPv6 Internet.
We need to understand and document how a flat IPv6 Internet can be
deployed in parallel with the existing IPv4 Internet without
introducing serious operational or security problems.
We need to provide enough education regarding the advantages of
a globally-addressable, flat Internet that we can change the way
that large numbers of people think about network architecture.
Remember there are more Internet administrators who were spawned
and trained during a time of widespread NAT use than there are
those of us who remember the flat IPv4 Internet.
AND, in the meantime, we need to avoid advocating NAT or NAT-like
solutions to problems that can be solved without destroying the
global-addressability or "flatness" of the IPv6 Internet.
Also, the vast majority of Internet users are not in the least
possessive about their IP address; it's different every time they
connect. Those who are possessive are those who run services of one
kind or another. It's our job to make that possible without forcing
them down the NAThole.
I completely agree.
But, what I don't understand is how the use of overlapping site-local
addresses on globally-attached networks is any better than NAT.
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
