[126038] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Pitcock)
Wed Apr 28 18:09:08 2010
From: William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <01F57362-8092-48CB-8336-15B9CC1713C2@virtualized.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:06:57 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 14:54 -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Carl Rosevear wrote:
> > I don't understand why anyone thinks NAT should be a fundamental part of the v6 internet
>
> Perhaps the ability to change service providers without having to renumber?
DHCPv6 solves that issue if implemented correctly in the CPE
firewall/router appliance.
William
