| 1 |
On 11/03/2013 06:00, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 05:07:25PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> NAT behind a home router is bad, too. For IPv4, it's only necessary |
| 5 |
>> because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to let everyone have a unique |
| 6 |
>> one. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The best real reason for moving to IPV6 is address space (or lack |
| 9 |
> thereof, in the case of IPV4). The people who are truly interested in |
| 10 |
> speeding up IPV6 adoption should do their best to shut up the internet |
| 11 |
> hippies who constantly rant and rave about how "NAT is evil". Don't let |
| 12 |
> the cause get distracted by that unrelated issue. Focus on the core |
| 13 |
> issue. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You are being over-simplistic. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Lack of IPv4 address space *caused* NAT to happen, the two are |
| 19 |
inextricably intertwined. Even worse, people now have NAT conflated with |
| 20 |
all sorts of other things. Like for example NAT and security. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
NAT is the context of an IPv6 discussion is *very* relevant, it's one of |
| 23 |
the points you have to raise to illustrate what bits inside people's |
| 24 |
heads needs to be identified and changed. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Until you change the content of people's heads, IPv6 is just not going |
| 27 |
to happen. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 31 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives