> From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> maybe this is what the market wants -- a multiple-protocol Internet,
> where tools for IPv4/IPv6 interoperation will be needed ... and valued.
This relates to an approach that seems more fruitful, to me - let's try and
figure out things that sidestep this incredibly divisive, upsetting and
fundamentally unproductive argument, and try and find useful things we can do
to make things work better.
> Which can, undoubtably, be put in a sound theoretical framework for
> NATs, in network topology. NATs do not have to be a hack.
Well, the fundamental architectural premise of NAT's *as we know them today* -
that there are no globally unique names at the internetwork level - is one
which is inherently problematic (long architectural rant explaining why
omitted). So I don't think that the classic NAT model is a good idea,
long-term.
However, I think it's a bit of a logical fault to think that the only options
are i) IPv6 and ii) NAT's. That's like saying that if my dog's not in my
office, he must be on Mars - there are other alternatives! This is especially
true in the long run; we may be stuck with NAT in the very short term, but
in the longer term we can explore other alternatives.
> NATs ... seem to have been discovered before being modeled, that is
> all.
Umm, not quite, IIRC. Papers by Paul Tsuchiya and Van Jacobsen discussed the
concept a long time before any were commercially available.
Noel
