Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:32:29 -0400

> From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>

    > All of the energy and money being spent on NATs could and should be
    > spent to begin the migration to IPv6 instead.

Oh, goody, another round of wasted time and energy arguing about IPv6 and NAT
boxes on the IETF list (triggered, as usual, by more pro-IPv6 propoganda from
desperate IPv6 proponents).

Definitely the most incisive summation of IPv6 I've seen recently was this
one:

    > IPv6 is like the DoD completing the design of a gigaton nuclear bomb in
    > the year 2000; everybody's thinking that it would've been cool to have
    > this in 1963, but who the hell wants to spend all the bucks on it 37
    > years late?

By the way, just out of interest, don't the tops of your knees get kind of
bruised every time to you see the word "NAT", or have you learned to scoot
back from your desk in time?

	Noel

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:36:13 -0400

> Oh, goody, another round of wasted time and energy arguing about
> IPv6 and NAT boxes on the IETF list

So it seems. Too bad you couldn't just leave it at that without adding
another dose of gasoline to the mix.

Meanwhile, those of us who believe IPv6 is the best and most promising
way out of this mess will continue to work on actually making it
happen. Of course, if someone has a better idea, I'd surely love to
read the draft.

Thomas