i suggest that, for most of us, there are more useful and concrete major
direct goals of ipv6 than anti-nat religion.
to the extent that anti-NAT is a religion it is because NAT is a religion
no, it's a market reality. we may not like it, but we'd be fools to deny
I agree that one would be a fool to deny that NATs exist and are widely
deployed. Indeed, there would be no need for an anti-NAT effort if this
were not the case - so the anti-NAT folks inherently accept this.
But NATs are a religion even beyond the reality of present-day deployment.
Indeed, it's the tendency of people to make the leap from "market reality"
to "this is the way things should be" or "things cannot possibly be any
different" that causes me the greatest concern.
Such views, I submit, are a form of religion.