At 02:10 PM 4/22/00, Keith Moore wrote:
> > Look, I have on my disk a file from June, 1992 (yes, that's not a typo -
> > *1992*) called "Problems with NAT".
This is probably a naive viewpoint but I have always viewed NAT as a hack
that would allow us to continue to use 32bit addresses until we could
deploy a larger address. When this discussion was going on back in 1992
(yes, I remember the arguments) NAT was proposed as an interim solution,
not a final solution. So, whatever happened to IPv6? 128 bit addresses
would certainly allow us to continue using IP addresses as endpoint
identifiers thus eliminating the need for NAT. It seems that this is a
more reasonable solution than trying to make NAT work under all circumstances.
I hate to say it but if Microsoft deployed IPv6 in its OS products, this
discussion would probably be moot because the endpoint users would upgrade
most of the endpoints for us thus just requiring the backbone to run IPv4
and IPv6 routing in parallel for a time.
Never mind. I am sure I am just being naive.
Brian Lloyd Lucent Technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3461 Robin Lane, Suite 1
http://www.livingston.com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.530.676.6513 - voice +1.530.676.3442 - fax
