[ppml] *Spam?* Re: IPv6 flawed?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Kevin Kargel
>Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 12:10 PM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] *Spam?* Re: IPv6 flawed?
>
>
> Ted,
>	I completely hear what you are saying, and I agree that the
>situation not only exists but is just as drastic as you are saying.
>This is not a unique situation, and exists with distressing frequency.
>	Having stipulated that, bad network design should not be a
>driver for protocol specification.  Rather, a good protocol
>specification should be a leading factor to good network design. 

Bad network design should not LIMIT good protocol design.  But, if while
your designing your good protocol you have two different ways of doing
something, both equally good for your purposes, why would you pick the
way that causes problems for the people who have bad networks, when you
could pick the way that would be neutral to their bad networks?

I can't say one way or another if IETF has deliberately made choices
with IPv6 that make it more difficult to design an IPv6 NAT, simply for
the sake of making it more difficult to design an IPv6 NAT.  Since,
I'm not tasked with designing an IPv6 NAT and have not researched it.
But, from what some people
seem to have said in the past, an outsider would certainly draw that
conclusion.

Ted