On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 08:48:19AM -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Nick,
>
> >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).
Great! So do I! NAT is basically a workaround for an IPv4 problem,
and I think we can all agree that it are basically a pain, and not
useful in and end-to-end IPv6 world! I think we should make it
unnecessary!
I'm questioning the _connection_ between _SLAs_ and _NAT_.
a) I don't think having SLAs will cause people to use NAT, because
it will be so much easier not to if your ISP gives you a /64
rather than a single IPv4 address.
b) I don't think not having SLAs will prevent people using NAT
if they, for some perverse reason, decide they want to.
you don't have to agree with me. I'm just explaining my 'NO' vote.
-----N
--
Nick 'Sharkey' Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://zoic.org/sharkey>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
