The discrepancy in opinions below seems to me to point towards the
deployment path for IPv6. Corporate users and those with very large
address space needs (wireless handhelds) will deploy IPv6 and in effect
"pay" for the engineering cost of building IPv6 into operating systems and
network elements. Once the costs come down, home users, small businesses,
and their ISPs will follow.
(Note that I do think IPv6 is inevitable and that is a Good Thing; I also
think that it is unrealistic to expect the low-end/cost-driven user to jump
into the conversion; telling them their (temporary) solution is "evil"
does not make them move any faster).
--On Monday, November 05, 2001 14:40 -0500 Thomas Narten
<narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
"J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc(_at_)ginger(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu> writes:
(This message coming to you via the NAT box I bought in the
hole-in-the-wall computer store in the little strip mall right down the
street, here in Podunksville.
Lucky you.
If I had a NAT box at home, and I tried to connect to my corporate
network through it, I would quickly learn two things:
1) It doesn't work (it's an IPsec based solution)
2) If I then called the Help Desk, their response would be "we don't
support that configuration".
YMMV.
Thomas
Hans Kruse, Associate Professor
J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management
Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701
740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax