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

[Eric Rescorla <ekr at rtfm.com>]

Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> writes:
> > Sadly, the IETF seems to find ways to generate immense amounts of heat over 
> > NAT, while sticking its collective head in the sand with regards to 
> > activity in the marketplace.
> 
> the NAT vendors are the irresponsible ones.  they create a mess out of the
> network and then expect IETF to clean it up, then claim that IETF is in denial
> for not doing so.  and of course IETF has tried to do so, more than once,
> and failed.  not for lack of effort, but because it's simply not possible to
> fix NATs.
This is more hyperbole. How have NATs created a mess out of the network?
Yes, I understand that they've made the network environment more 
complicated which makes life hard on protocols designers. So what?
If the customers are getting what they want, that seems to me that it
can hardly be characterized as a "mess". And you have yet to establish
that they're not getting what they want.

-Ekr

-- 
[Eric Rescorla                                   ekr at rtfm.com]
                http://www.rtfm.com/