[136176] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Feb 1 16:58:23 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102011534260.54349@murf.icantclick.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:38:44 -0800
To: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:36 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dave Israel wrote:
>=20
>> responsibility. If they want to use DHCPv6, or NAT, or Packet over =
Avian Carrier to achieve that, let them. If using them causes them =
problems, then they should not use them. It really isn't the =
community's place to force people not to use tools they find useful =
because we do not like them.
>=20
> Not to mention that when you take tools -away- from people that solve =
an existing problem, you'll get a lot of pushback.
>=20
NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address =
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
It does not solve any other problem(s).
As such, taking it away when giving you a large enough address space =
that there is no longer a shortage doesn't
strike me as taking away a tool that solves a problem. It strikes me as =
giving you a vastly superior tool that solves
rather than working around a problem.
Owen
