Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)

["J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu>]

    > From: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>

    > that's an oxymoron. the basic premis of NAT is fundamnetally broken.

Just out of interest, do you complain about gravity too?

We lost our chance to avoid NAT's when variable length addresses were removed
from TCPv2.5 (IIRC the version number correctly). NAT's are here, like it or
not, and the only question is how to make lemonade out of them. 

	Noel

PS: Speaking of gravity, does anyone have a copy of that great hack CMU memo
about how they were going to turn gravity off in the CS building on the
weekend to help everyone move offices?