> From: Jeffrey Altman <jaltman(_at_)COLUMBIA(_dot_)EDU>
> 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 *
kermit-support(_at_)kermit-project(_dot_)org