On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote: > Some operators want NAT. Some don't. There are loud voices on both > sides. Consensus seems slightly against.
Hi Lee, Some operators want NAT. That's it. End of discussion. This isn't a consensus question. Some operators want NAT. Period. Full stop. They'll hold off deploying and when IPv6 is sufficiently valuable, they'll pay someone to give them NAT. Regardless of whether the consensus of the IETF approves. These are the folks who made Gauntlet and its transparent proxies the #1 firewall product back during the bubble. They don't see the Internet the way you do. And if there are more of them than you think, IPv6 won't achieve sufficient value, won't reach critical mass. Then you'll really REALLY be stuck with NAT. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
