On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Greg Daley wrote:
> I'm pretty sure this would cripple any (reasonable) > end-to-end assumptions people may want to make with > programming IPv6 apps. I do not think so. > > Please, think of your children when asking us to > support NAT. We're trying to make the Internet a system which > will support the applications we need in 2020, not 1999. If you are making assumptions that there will be no NAT6, but it may be forced on us by the market, it is you who are crippling the Internet of the future. > > I'm not advocating "fight against the tide", but > initially IPv6 can be marketed as better than IPv4 > because of NAT4. Once IPv6 starts taking off, then > it's our job to educate people about NAT being evil. If you are successful there will be no NAT6 even it if it is supported, however if you are unsuccessful the damage done by the no-NAT6 decision will be significant. > We shouldn't be accomodating it now. Your own argument points the other way - if we are thinking about future we should not artificially cripple the environment now. > Greg Anyway, I suppose the issue had been discussed enough. Thanks, Aleksey -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
