> I have a hard time believing that your average IP net manager > wouldn't prefer to run an IPv6-IPv6 NAT box (lets call this > NATv6) at her ISP boundary rather than do site-wide renumbering. some of the applications that will motivate the deployment of IPv6 will be those that do not work with NAT. (if they do work with NAT, it's probably easier to just use IPv4.) so it's quite likely that whereas imposing a NAT box on IPv4 users wouldn't break many apps using IPv4, imposing a NAT box on IPv6 users will break many of the apps using IPv6. also, people using NATs are starting to become aware of the problems that they cause - particularly those trying to build VPNs between multiple NATted networks. so by the time there's enough v6 deployment for people to have to renumber, enough people will have been burned by NATs that won't want to repeat that experience. Keith
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? John Stracke
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Ian King
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Daniel Senie
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Richard Shockey
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Keith Moore
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Joe Touch
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? John Stracke
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Thomas Narten
- runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes ... Paul Francis
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past m... Steve Deering
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mi... Keith Moore
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mi... Thomas Narten
- Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Pa... Paul Francis
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Anthony Atkielski
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Kai Henningsen
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Leonid Yegoshin
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Bob Braden
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? J. Noel Chiappa
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Dick St.Peters
- Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Keith Moore
- RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated? Shankar Agarwal
