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

[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.

"for the moment".  NATs are not carved in stone.  and it's not our job in IETF
to defend or reinforce the market's bad decisions in the past, but to ensure
that the network works well in the future.

Keith