Re: IPv6 allocatin (was Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting)

["David R. Conrad" <David.Conrad () nominum com>]

> > When IPv6 offers something end users or ISPs value over IPv4+NAT.
> Hah, interesting thought! :-)  Perhaps we should push for people to 
> use the IPv4+NAT kludge, 

A very large number of folks are using IPv4+NAT now, mostly without
complaint (or even awareness).  I use it myself quite frequently.  In a
limited (albeit typical) mode of communication, NAT works just fine. 
IPv6, on the other hand, does NOT work for the vast majority of people
on the Internet.

> Two seperately NAT'ed hosts don't communicate enough today for 
> more than a "priviledge few" to discover all the issues with it.

You are expecting people who have been trained to expect to have to
reboot periodically and/or reinstall entire operating systems when they
have problems to get annoyed when they have difficulties trying to
communicate to a remote site because of NAT?  If/when folks run into
difficulties due to NAT, I suspect they'll just shrug their shoulders,
mumble something about broken web sites, and fine another
porn^H^H^H^Hcontent site that works. 

Rgds,
-drc