i know of some companies employee can be fired by surfing the Internet during work hours. i would think those employee love to have private addresses on their workstations and no NAT devices at all, just in case they don't "accidentally" get fired. you can have many use of private address without NAT involved also.
cheers. ] Naiming Shen wrote: ] ] > ] > ok, but if any special routing support for SL is removed, then the onl y ] > ] > thing left is a private address space for SL. as in ipv4 case, i'm not ] > ] > aware of any application treating 10.x.x.x addr any different from the ] > ] > global routable ones. ] > ] ] > ] many such apps do treat 1918 addresses differently than ordinary ] > ] addresses, in an attempt to work around problems caused by NATs. ] > ] ] > ] >then the purpose is to work around the NAT, not necessary related ] >to the private addresses. if for any reason, people still want to ] >use NAT for v6, then those applications still need to adjust. there ] >is no other way around it. i can understand why people hate NAT ] >for various reasons, but private address is not equal to NAT. ] > ] > ] The problems related to NAT and those related to private addresses are ] in most cases the same. ] ] ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- ] 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] ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- - Naiming -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
