[arin-ppml] IPV4 allocations

[Randy Bush]

On 09.01.04 12:30, McNutt, Justin M. wrote:
> Our "look way ahead into the future" IT people are thinking about taking
> it even further.  They predict a day when we'll throw away the firewalls
> for the same reason we threw away NAT:  They break two-way applications.

a laudable view.  we try to follow that in our little universe.  but we 
don't have many end users.

> I was dismayed to find out that NAT is still possible in IPv6, though
> pleased that it breaks enough things that it will, perhaps, be deemed
> unusable enough that it is never widely used.

we wish.  at the november ietf, v6/v6 nat was discussed in two ways:

   o it is inevitable so 'we' should do it so it is done right.  i
     read this as "someone is going to load ms greenberg on the
     cattle car, so it might as well be we."

   o and than an over the top science fiction massive koolaid attack
     from fred that needs to be read/seen to be believed.  i am not
     sure if it is archived somewhere in some fashion.

randy