> the reason I point out the flaws with NAT is not that I think we can
> get rid of them in v4. it's because some people are still of the
> belief that NATs are mostly harmless and that we should not only
> permit them into v6, but extend our architecture to embrace them.
Keith, that's not the only reason, and you know it. You want to point out to
people how screwed up NAT's are in the hope that they will be more inclined
to move *from* IPv4+NAT *to* your perfect future, one in which we once again
have a global namespace.
Noel,
I have immense respect for you. But even as smart as you are - when you try
to guess what my motivations are, you are likely to be wrong enough that
you'll misrepresent them.
IPv4+NAT, as ugly as it is, is the future. Now can we please stop sticking
our heads in the sand, and start dealing with that?
We *are* dealing with that. And the fix is called using IPv6 alongside
IPv4+NAT. Because all of the other fixes are even harder to deploy and less
likely to work.
Keith