![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
On Aug 01 2008, at 08:53, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
problem
The problem is that the spin of the article is that NATs are being added to IPv6 itself (which is a misleading statement when taken at face value, actually surprising, hence perceived as sensational), when in reality they are being added (put back, really) as a deployment strategy for interconnecting IPvNAT and IPv6. In hindsight, this approach should have been visible from the questions e.g. in
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072109-nat-housley-qna.htmlHaving said that, what I've seen of the articles is quite solid journalism, and I've seen far worse.
Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.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.