quietly....

[jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth)]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>

> If you're determined to destroy IPv6 by bringing the problems of NAT
> forward with you, then, I'm fine with you remaining in your IPv4
> island. I'm willing to bet that most organizations will embrace an
> internet unencumbered by the brokenness that is NAT and move forward.
> I do not think that lack of NAT has been a significant barrier to IPv6
> adoption, nor do I think it will be.

I won't run an edge-network that *isn't* NATted; my internal machines 
have no business having publicly routable addresses.  No one has *ever*
provided me with a serviceable explanation as to why that's an invalid
view.

Cheers,
-- jra