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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

To: "J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
From: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:59:59 -0400
Cc: moore at cs.utk.edu, ietf at ietf.org, jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu
In-reply-to: <200306182139.h5ILdoQ4006194@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <200306182139.h5ILdoQ4006194@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

> We lost our chance to avoid NAT's when variable length addresses were
> removed from TCPv2.5 (IIRC the version number correctly). 

or maybe when IAB was shot down after Kobe :)

> NAT's are here, like it or not, and the only question is how to make
> lemonade out of them. 

see my other comment about magic pixie dust.

the way to fix NATs is to obsolete them.  IPv6 is the best shot we have
at that.

References:
- Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
  - From: J. Noel Chiappa

Prev by Date: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
Next by Date: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
Previous by thread: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
Next by thread: RE: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

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

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.