Re: agenda items for SF ? ISPs document

[Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>]

> NATv6 is a possible solution and the WG may decide that is the best
> recommendation in the long run. 

It would be very helpful to distinguish between the use of network address
translation for the purpose of load-balancing within a network of hosts that
are dedicated to support specific applications that are known to be compatible
with this practice, and network address translation that is imposed on a set
of hosts that are used for a variety of purposes and are expected to support
an open-ended set of applications.

NAT can work well for specific, carefully chosen cases.  It cannot be made to
work well in general.

Keith