Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Jens Link <lists () quux de>]

Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de> writes:

> And quite important for residential ISPs of some size: have fun teaching
> your call centers diagnosing double-NAT failure modes.
>
> NAT444 is a hell I don't want to visit really.

No it's great! It's secure! It's easy to implement! It's the only way to
do it right!

Till the end of the month I'm working for a rather large
enterprise customer and they use NAT, NAT NAT, NAT NAT NAT, and even
even NAT NAT NAT NAT connections for their VPN. They claim that it's
easy. I think it isn't and I relay need to get drunk after
troubleshooting such a problem. So I must be stupid, because NAT is so
*easy*.

On the other hand, when you tell them about IPv6 they say it's to
complicated and that they don't need it.

Jens
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Foelderichstr. 40   | 13595 Berlin, Germany    | +49-151-18721264     |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink () guug de | -------------------  | 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------