Nat v IPv6 (was "Free NAT for NT?")

["Brock, Todd A" <TB120060 () exchange DAYTONOH NCR com>]

There is a rea$on IPv6 isn't being u$ed...


        Carl Brewer Wrote:

> I'm not coming down on Robert here!
>
> <rant>
> It's a shame that M$ are providing NAT, which even they know
> is a bad technology (it was a M$ employee that wrote the IETF
> case against NAT), and not IPv6.  Please don't lose focus!  NAT
> is a short-term ugly broken hack, push your vendor(s) for IPv6
> support!
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-nat-implications-04.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts-ietf-iab-case-for-ipv6-04.txt
>
> If you're using, or worse, planning to use, NAT and you haven't 
> read the above two documents, read them :)
> </rant>
>
> Carl
        (Clip original)