[125709] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cutler James R)
Wed Apr 21 13:57:37 2010
From: Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BCF3B96.4020802@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:57:00 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
No. You get a different set of problems, mostly administrative.
On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Dave Sparro wrote:
> On 4/21/2010 8:46 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:
>>=20
>> Despite it doing the job it was intended to do, I've always seen NAT
>> as a bit of an ugly hack, with potential to get even uglier with LSN
>> and multi-level NAT in the future. I personally welcome a return to =
a
>> NAT-less world with IPv6. :)
>> =20
>=20
> Don't you get all of the same problems when there is a properly =
restrictive SPI firewall at both ends of the connection regardless of =
weather NAT is used as well.
>=20
James R. Cutler
james.cutler@consultant.com
