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

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

> Don't get me wrong, I do not defend NAT. The point I was trying to make
> is this: it is a waste of time to say that NAT sucks. We know it. For
> IPv4, it's too late to change. 

The reason that we are explaining (once again) why NAT sucks is that some
people in this community are still in denial about that, and those people
impair our ability to do useful work.  So we're trying to educate them, or at
least beat them senseless, so they'll get out of the way.

> IMHO, here is the deal: IPv4 NAT does
> suck, but there is nothing we can do to remove it; so the only worthy
> efforts are 1) maybe try to make it less worse (I will not go as far as
> saying better) and 2) let's not make the same mistake with IPv6.

that's it in a nutshell.