To:
"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
"David R. Conrad" <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Date:
Tue, 07 Aug 2001 17:31:59 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<20010808001432.8394.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
Dan, At 12:14 AM 8/8/2001 +0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote: >The NAT sites I've seen are using it for precisely one reason: to >conserve precious IPv4 address space. Large organizations also use NAT so they aren't held hostage by their service provider. Really. If you don't believe me, ask any large organization that does not have "portable" address space. >They won't use NAT with IPv6. Yes, they will. As soon as they are told by their new ISP that they must renumber, they'll question if they are any better off than they were with IPv4. Neat thing about IPv6 is that everyone will be in the same boat -- no historical "portable" prefixes, right? The argument can be made that you can renumber with AAAA, but pretending that renumbering is not an incentive to use NAT is just silly. Rgds, -drc P.S. Sorry if this is considered heretical.