Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

    > What is technically wrong with v6 that isn't already technically wrong
    > with v4? 

Thank you, Perry, you've put it in a nutshell.
      Noel


Excellent.  We've agreed that IPv6's problems are a subset of IPv4's.

Now until we have a concrete design proposal for a perfect world, can
we drop that particular line of taunting?

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, (continued)* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Harald Alvestrand* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Mike Fisk* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, V Guruprasad* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Sam Liang* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, J. Noel Chiappa* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Geoff Huston* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, J. Noel Chiappa* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Bradley Dunn* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Jon Crowcroft* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, J. Noel Chiappa* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Matt Crawford* <= *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Randy Bush* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, J. Noel Chiappa* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Bradley Dunn* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Sean Doran* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Keith Moore* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, J. Noel Chiappa* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Keith Moore* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Sean Doran* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, J. Noel Chiappa* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Angelos D. Keromytis*

Previous by Date:	*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Geoff Huston*
Next by Date:	*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, John Collis*
Previous by Thread:	*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, J. Noel Chiappa*
Next by Thread:	*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Randy Bush*
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]