To:
"Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "David R. Conrad" <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Cc:
"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:
"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Date:
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 12:56:27 +0100
Importance:
Normal
In-Reply-To:
<200108080130.VAA10224@astro.cs.utk.edu>
Reply-To:
<alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
Keith Moore wrote: > So if we want to avoid NAT in IPv6, we need to make renumbering > *much* easier than it is now. Or accept the reality that enforcing PA as the 'only' approach is in direct conflict with the ultimate goals of the consumer. > ... I think it's reasonable to assume that large numbers of > people will follow the path of least resistance, or perhaps, > of least apparent risk. This is the best description of the problem I have seen. A missing piece is that the local minimum is different depending on your perspective as provider or consumer. Our whole approach is biased toward the provider, partially because of scale, but mostly because they had a voice in the decision while the consumer did not. Yes scale is a real problem, but the fact that the consumer will find the path of least resistance is at least as big. Tony