[arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern

[Roger Marquis]

Kevin Kargel wrote:
>> To state this another way, those of us who manage end-nodes will not be
>> purchasing IPv6 network gear that fails to support a standardized version
>> of NAT.  Manufacturers will in turn not offer such equipment knowing it
>> will not sell.  How anyone can continue to argue that IPv6 does not
>> require
> I am by no means arguing that IPv6 does not require NAT

Didn't mean to imply that you were, just that the implementation will need
to be standardized in order to avoid interoperability issues, and that lack
of interoperability is one of the two primary issues preventing IPv6 adoption.

Didn't mean to imply that you were, just that the implementation will need
to be standardized in order to avoid interoperability issues, and that
lack or interoperability is preventing IPv6 adoption.

>> NAT in light of this is beyond me, but I do hope you work for a
>> competitor.
> Wow, a little sensitive are we?  It seems I struck a glancing blow to a
> nerve here.  I hope you read again, I was not arguing that NAT is not
> needed, just that it is beside the point.  Why argue about something that is
> going to happen no matter what we say?

Apologies Kevin.  What I should have said is that I hope those who oppose
NAT in IPv6 (on an abstract technical basis, see Lee Dilkie's post of 10/28
for a good example) are employed at competitors.

Roger Marquis