Subject: Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:14:54 -0500

> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>

    > you're ideologically opposed to deploying v6 instead of against it for
    > technical reasons?

Ah, *that's* what's wrong with IPv6 - it doesn't pay enough attention to
control of the means of production by the workers.

And here I was, all these years, thinking there were all these technical
things wrong with IPv6. Oh well, I guess I wasn't very perceptive.

	Noel

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Dec 2000 04:30:02 -0500

> things wrong with IPv6. Oh well, I guess I wasn't very perceptive.

What is technically wrong with v6 that isn't already technically wrong
with v4?

v6 doesn't claim to be a universal cure. It claims to fix a specific
problem -- the exhaustion of IP addresses. No, it doesn't fix the
routing table problem.

Unfortunately, we don't know how to do that particularly elegantly
yet. I'm not very convinced that you know either, Noel. I used to
believe I was merely ignorant when I heard claims from "my betters" to
the effect that there were techniques we were ignoring that would
magically fix everything, but once I actually did things like reading
the papers in question, I'm afraid I stopped believing.

--
Perry E. Metzger		[email-masked]
--
Quality NetBSD CDs, Support & Service. http://www.wasabisystems.com/