On Oct 27, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: > Keith Moore wrote: >> you keep insisting on IETF endorsing v4-like NATs in IPv6 - but the effect >> of what you're trying to do is make IPv6 as broken as IPv4 is. no thanks. > > NATs are not broken in IPv4. This is a statement of fact given the > evidence (user-base and rate of growth).
garbage. you can't expect to be taken seriously when you say things like that. > Statements that v4-style NATs > will make v6 broken are opinion, unsupportable opinion given v6's rate of > adoption. also garbage. there is now 15 years of experience with ipv4 NAT among application developers and users that indicates otherwise. > As long as consumers and security experts continue demanding v4-style > (stateful) NAT in IPv6 efforts to kill it and/or proclaim it dead are > greatly exaggerated, at best. there are many valid reasons for killing it, and few valid reasons for keeping it. some of us doing our best to eliminate the few valid reasons that remain. > In the real world we recognize that IPv6 is and will continue to go > nowhere until working NAT64 and NAT66 implementations are available. people who cite the "real world" as a justification for anything are already on thin ice. what this essentially means is "you should conform to my prejudices because I cannot defend them". > That's not opinion but simple, objective, agenda-free observation. it's not even observation. it's delusion. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
