I would question your assumptions: a) That the existence of site locals will cause people to use NAT
b) That the deprecation of site locals will prevent people from
using NAT.
I think we have to turn this around- I view NATs as a bad thing for all the reasons you've heard time and time again (so I won't repeat them). To get rid of them, it is this group's responsibility to put forth a vision of how we can have a functional world without them. We need to answer the real concerns people have raised as they've voted "no". If this group doesn't do it, I can guarantee you that NATs *will* exist and be forever ensconced in the architecture.
With that in mind, I ask the following question:
what is the benefit of going forward at all with IP version 6?
and you answered:
A very large, very flexible address space, and a protocol which allows much greater flexibility than IPv4 for, for example, Mobility.
But with NATs I don't need a large address space. I simply have address spaces. That will be the operating model I must code to. While it is true that IPv6 will provide a nice advance in Mobility, I'm not sure it's worth the effort or the pain, and I doubt many enterprises will think so either.
So, if you've voted "no", ask yourselves whether you're voting "no" to IPv6 with the same two letters.
Regards,
Eliot
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
