On 4/30/10 1:37 PM, Chris Engel wrote: > It is admirable to support efforts that NAT NEED not be deployed for those > organizations who deem it problematic.... it is wrong-headed to attempt to > PREVENT organizations who find NAT useful from deploying it on their OWN > network boundaries in an IPv6 world. IETF cannot prevent people from doing things that do harm to themselves or to the network. But IETF's job is to recommend what will work well for the Internet as a whole, not to optimize for corner cases at the expense of the whole.
Given two different architectures, one without NATs and one with NATs, you solve certain problems (like hiding internal network architecture) in different ways. But the solution without NATs is less complex, more reliable, flexible, cheaper, and more adaptable to a wide variety of applications. The choice is clear.
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
