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

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:15:24 EDT

>     > 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).

Oh hardly.  I just don't the fact that ISP's are now forcing NATs on
customers unless customers can document a reason why they need more
than 1 IP address.  When NATs break so many existing protocols and
applications.  I am not a IPv6 proponent other than IPv6 provides the
extended address space that everyone needs without breaking the end to
end model of IP.

    Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer * Kermit-95 for Win32 and OS/2
                 The Kermit Project * Columbia University
              612 West 115th St #716 * New York, NY * 10025
  http://www.kermit-project.org/k95.html * [email-masked]