i suggest that, for most of us, there are more useful and concrete major
direct goals of ipv6 than anti-nat religion.
And in fact, the anti-NAT religion hurts deployment of IPv6
because it is hard to get customers to throw away things
they have already bought.
When it is necessary to couch arguments in strong terms, subtleties
inevitably get lost. Nobody is arguing that customers will simply
throw away NATs. On the other hand, there are lots of paths being
proposed (including proposals by NAT proponents) that require adding
some functionality to what is now a NAT box.
anyway, what's the half-life of a piece of network equipment? 2-3 years?
existing NATs are going to be discarded, or at least upgraded, within a short
time anyway.
NATs are more entrenched in people's minds than they are in reality.
I would also suggest that the rapidity at which NAT is
being deployed for IPv4 suggests that we need to think about
how to deploy IPv6 in an environment where IPv4 NATs are prevalent.
it's being worked on. watch the I-D directory.
Thus, it is unlikely that IPv6 will displace IPv4 NATs; tather
it will augment them.
agreed.
Keith