|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:49:50 -0500 From: alex@yuriev.com To: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <1100257804.22942.18.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu > > > Regardless of the merit of NAT, there is little merit in IPv6+NAT as it > > > has all the downsides of both. If you can live with NAT, stay in IPv4 > > > and talk to the IPv6 world over IPv4<->IPv6 NAT. > > > > Or upgrade to NAP (Network Architecture Protection) *grin* > > "No, in IPv6 it is done differently, it is then called NAP, which is > waaay cooler and saves you a lot of money and troubles". Newsflash. NAT is not going to die. It is supply and demand. There is a demand for NAT and it will stay here until every single publication that enterprise CFO reads keeps saying for 5 years that NAT is useless. So, is there any chance that the super-smart network community pulls its collective head out of the sand? Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |