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>

    > The reason that we are explaining (once again) why NAT sucks is that
    > some people in this community are still in denial about that

The person who's most in denial around here is you - about how definitively
the market has, for the moment, chosen IPv4+NAT as the best balance between
cost and effectiveness.

Get a grip. We all know you don't like NAT. You don't need to reply to
*every* *single* *message* *about* *NAT* explaining for the 145,378,295th
time how bad they are.

    > 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.

Nicely put - your continual flaming about NAT really gets in the way.

	Noel