Hi Fred, Fred Baker wrote: > On Mar 30, 2009, at 7:37 AM, Roland Bless wrote: > >> I really fear > > As near as I can tell, that is the substance of the debate here. There > are some of us who are trying to do something to make routing scale > (although the AD tells us that we are not allowed to discuss that) and > make business/business operations work well, and there are a large > number of us that are distributing fear, uncertainty, and doubt. > > I hate FUD when a sales person uses it, and I hate it more when it > pretends to be a technical argument.
I think it's fair enough to discuss about implications that a new technology or mechanism may have. Sure, it's hypothetical, but we can already learn from history and judge some decisions in the past as a mistake from a today's point of view. Yes, I think that there are operational problems to be solved for IPv6 since obviously not all requirements can be met right now, so we must do something about it. I'm convinced that NAT66 has obviously many advantages over the current v4 NAPT, however, I'm not yet convinced that it's the right tool to address the unsolved problems (are they even totally clear?). NAT66 breaks end-to-end connectivity for some applications and probably doesn't address the (poorly understood?) "topology hiding" feature. Don't you think that people will just use an available NAT66 box, because that's what they are used to have for IPv4, esp. even when they don't need it actually? Would it be worth the "cost" in the end? Regards, Roland _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
