Subject: Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:15:53 -0500

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

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

Thank you, Perry, you've put it in a nutshell.

	Noel

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:58:51 -0600

> Thank you, Perry, you've put it in a nutshell.

Excellent.  We've agreed that IPv6's problems are a subset of IPv4's.

Now until we have a concrete design proposal for a perfect world, can
we drop that particular line of taunting?

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:09:21 -0800

> Excellent.  We've agreed that IPv6's problems are a subset of IPv4's.

unfortunately, we have not shown it is a proper subset.  e.g. the larger
address space may exacerbate issues already causing problems in v4, such as
the increasing number of routes.

and i am not 'taunting' but trying to see how the hell we can solve some of
the serious problems we have today and not take them with us to the v6 land
of milk and honey, e.g. the multi6 discussion.

if we don't get much smarter quickly, we'll just be making the same mess on
a larger (in one dimension) scale.  we need to take a very serious look at
8+8 again.  we need to be open to other good ideas.

what we don't need is more pissing contests and cute blame-casting, from
either side.  the fact is that there are no sides, as we're all in the same
mess today, and likely will be together in the same can-we-avoid-a-mess
tomorrow.  it's called the internet.

randy