W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Application protocols and Address Translation

From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:07:48 -0500
Message-Id: <200212022307.gB2N7mj16845@astro.cs.utk.edu>
To: "Carl Ford" <carl@ietfwatch.net>
cc: John Angelmo <john@veidit.net>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, discuss@apps.ietf.org

> My point was not to argue the issue.  My point was that the IT manager has an
> ease of use with NATs that is a two stage process at least with IANA.  And
> that is not mentioning the routing requirements.  If I were being paid on
> getting the end users up, the value of going to IPv6 would seem pretty weak.
> So to combat this the value has to be more fully explained.

this is absolutely the case.  people who are accustomed to thinking that
NATs are the answer to something will have to be given a good reason
for changing their minds, and they'll need to be given other solutions
to the problems that they think NATs solve.

Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 18:08:59 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 24 February 2004 19:46:24 EST