Re: IPv6 uptake (was: The Reg does 240/4)

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 2/16/24 5:37 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 5:33 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
> > So you're not going to address that this is a management plain problem.
> Hi Mike,
>
> What is there to address? I already said that NAT's security
> enhancement comes into play when a -mistake- is made with the network
> configuration. You want me to say it again? Okay, I've said it again.

The implication being that we should keep NAT'ing ipv6 for... a thin 
veil of security. That all of the other things that NAT breaks is worth 
the trouble because we can't trust our fat fingers on firewall configs.

Mike