The <insert letter>GUPI model will drive the development of NATs.that's just nuts. GUPIs don't encourage NATs any more than any other aspect of IPv6.
It depends...
Let me clarify what I meant to say. I do think that we need a functional equivalent of todays PI addresses. If we make these "special" in any way, so that they be either a dedicated address block or we impose the restriction that these should not be routable, someone will come up with a translation device from globally routable addresses to the PI equivalent. Now, we can all think what we want of NATs, my experience as a network operator (in the ISP sense) is that it will create problems on the application layer - just as we are experiencing today.I'm beginning to think that citing NATs as a reason for not doing something in IPv6 is like comparing someone to Hitler in a political discussion - it's such an extreme statement that it can't be evaluated.
- kurtis -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
