To:
"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
cc:
ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se, uther@horst.ait.utk.edu
From:
Ron Tipton <uther@ait.utk.edu>
Date:
Wed, 08 Aug 2001 08:12:07 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Message from "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> of "08 Aug 2001 00:14:32 -0000." <20010808001432.8394.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
> The NAT sites I've seen are using it for precisely one reason: to > conserve precious IPv4 address space. They won't use NAT with IPv6. > > ---Dan Dan, I can only speak for myself, but we (the University of Tennessee) seriously considered using NAT for our dorm network, not because of lack of IPv4 address space, but because of lack of PORTABLE IPv4 address space. Most of our free IPv4 address space belonged to one of our ISPs and we DO NOT want to stay captive to them. In the end we decided to renumber our entire network to avoid NAT, but for us, NAT was a better solution than using IPv4 address space belonging to an ISP. After the pain of that renumbering, I assure you that if IPv6 address space only belongs to ISPs and not to the University of Tennessee, we will NAT to avoid captivity! r Ron Tipton Advanced Internet Technologies University of Tennessee