Subject: Re: IPv6 Comment
To: Jared D. McNeill <>
From: Feico Dillema <>
List: current-users
Date: 09/05/2000 02:28:01
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:59:03PM -0300, Jared D. McNeill wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Feico Dillema wrote:
> I wasn't trying to convince you that NAT was a better solution; just
> giving an example where NAT has worked. NBTel isn't a small ISP either,
> they're a fairly large company, and their service is great for everything
> that I do.
Ok, I understand and I also agree that NAT has been very important for
the survival and growth of the Internet in the past decade. My point
is not that NAT is not useful to deal with limited address space, but
it creates quite some problems too (as you mentioned yourself) that
need to be dealt with. In many cases they can be dealt with somehow,
but not all. The problem cases with NAT are not and will not be a
thing of the past, new problems will keep popping up, requiring more
and more workarounds and maintenance attention. At some point in time
and for some ISPs already now, this is just too much of a burden to be
a reasonable option.

kind regards,