Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

[Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann () gmail com>]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing <dwing () cisco com> wrote:

> Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
> are specific to NAT444.  Which is untrue.

I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and I disagree
that any of those say that the problems are specific to NAT444. They
all do state that these problems are present in NAT444, but not that
it's the only technology/scenario/configuration where you might find
them.

More importantly, I am unsure the point of this argument. Are you
trying to say that the items listed as broken in the draft are not
actually broken? Because in my experience they are. IMHO, the fact
that they are also broken in other (similar) scenarios is not evidence
that they are not broken in this one. On the contrary, this scenario
seems to be evidence to the brokenness in the others (until we get a
chance to test and document them all - are you volunteering? ;).

Cheers,
~Chris


> -d




-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org