 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu] > > I agree, but that opportunity may be to enhance NAT > rather than throw > > it away (you state something similar in your conclusion). > > As an engineer, the right thing to do is to transition away > from NAT (along with IPv4), so that eventually it can be discarded. As an engineer I think of COST vs BENEFIT. In this case the benefit to running NAT on my home network is that it saves me $50 per month in ISP fees, means I have wireless service to the whole house and means that guests can easily connect. I have never seen a coherent, rational argument as to why the network numbering on my internal network should be the same as the network numbering on the Internet. All I hear is a restatement of the original claim, the 'no you didn't' mode of argument. > I'm not a marketing person, but if I do my best to think like > one, I suspect that the way to market this transition is not > to say "this new box helps you get rid of NAT" but instead > "this is a new, enhanced NAT" > (or since they don't actually use the word NAT to talk about > consumer gear, call it something like "IPv6-ready Enhanced > Address Management") People will still want to do NAT on IPv6.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.