Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury) (fwd)

[Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> >As a transition strategy, NAT
> >can be acceptable. As a permanent feature, we have to consider that VERY
> >carefully. Many are trying to get people onto IPv6 to get them AWAY from
> >NAT. If it's to be a permanent fixture, application protocol design will
> >be severely affected.
> 
> NAT is already a permanent feature.  I think that the IETF needs to accept
> this and act accordingly...

I really don't see the purpose for NAT in IPv6. It's really an aweful
thing, but if you are correct, the logical solution is to make
end-to-endness not require network level transparency.

After all, end-to-end is goal. It can be achieved in spite of those
breaking the network layer.. 

As far as I'm concerned, NAT is an aweful thing from many differnt angles,
but I'd rather deal with it on a short term basis then not have a good
solution for the potential 30 years after actual implimentation that I
will be dealing with the results.