Subject: Re: IPv6 Comment
To: Sean Doran <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/02/2000 09:24:35
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Sean Doran wrote:
# It is wise for people developing applications to take NAT/ALG/PAT into
# consideration, just as it is wise for people developing applications
# to take into consideration the deployment of IPv6.
# Indeed, making assumptions about the network transport layer makes
# it hard to transition an application to any new network transport layer.
Sean, what part of "Breaks behaviour guaranteed by (the) IP (specification)"
do you not comprehend?
They are not "making assumptions", they are programming to the hitherto-
established standard as described in several RFCs and hopefully thus far
unabridged therein or elsewhere!
NAT is a symptom, not a solution. It's like trying to band-aid a shotgun
wound or stapling on a severed limb.
IPv6 is gonna be a pain to go to, to be sure, but sooner or later, someone
is going to have to bite the bullet and just do it. The problem lies in
convincing some of the bigger players to bridge that chasm, and ultimately
I think it's going to take a bunch of smaller players kicking the noise
upstream for a while.
Start -now-. :-)
BSD: u_long uptime;