Subject: Re: "unique enough" [RE: globally unique site local addresses]

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 20:48:11 +0100

> If can we provide a compelling architecture without private address
> then there should be no private addresses, otherwise NAT is a force 
> major
> issue and  we have to redo all the applications which are broken by NAT
> (peeing against the wind has its obvious perils, so there is no reason
> to get upset.).
>
I like to see this the other way around. If we invent new applications 
that won't work through NAT - people might find an incentive to not use 
it.

- kurtis -

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ignatios Souvatzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:52:54 +0100

> that won't work through NAT - people might find an incentive to not use 

There are old ones around... (reminds me I want to write a talkv6
specification and implementation) although I'm afraid with yet another special 
hackery you can make _each one of them_ work.

Regards,
	-is