From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
I agree, but that opportunity may be to enhance NAT
rather than throw
it away (you state something similar in your conclusion).
As an engineer, the right thing to do is to transition away
from NAT (along with IPv4), so that eventually it can be discarded.
As an engineer I think of COST vs BENEFIT.
In this case the benefit to running NAT on my home network is that it saves
me $50 per month in ISP fees, means I have wireless service to the whole
house and means that guests can easily connect.
I have never seen a coherent, rational argument as to why the network
numbering on my internal network should be the same as the network numbering
on the Internet. All I hear is a restatement of the original claim, the 'no
you didn't' mode of argument.
I'm not a marketing person, but if I do my best to think like
one, I suspect that the way to market this transition is not
to say "this new box helps you get rid of NAT" but instead
"this is a new, enhanced NAT"
(or since they don't actually use the word NAT to talk about
consumer gear, call it something like "IPv6-ready Enhanced
Address Management")
People will still want to do NAT on IPv6.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf