[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Craig Finseth]

   >> I believe that it means exactly what I intended per the definition below=
   =2E
   >> =A0admit (an event or activity) as legal or acceptable
   >> fail to prevent (something) from happening
   >
   > Why then I apologize, because I thought you meant to convey that NAT
   > should be *required* to become obsolete with IPv4, perhaps by
   > obstructing folks' choice to use it in IPv6. Surely Roger only meant
   > to offer his opinion that given a choice, few network security
   > professionals would choose to abandon the use NAT.

   It isn't just network security professionals who won't give up NAT,
   end-user consumers also won't.  If anything is clear from the past few
   year's field trials it's that IPv6 has received a vote of no confidence
   from consumers.  It has received that thumbs down primarily because it
   lacks address translation.

As a consumer, I'm not aware of voting at all...

More realistically, I haven't got a choice: the Cisco 675(or 8) that I
use doesn't support v6, so I'm stuck until it gets upgraded.

Yes, I use NAT and have a way of organizing my internal network: this
puts me above 99.99...% of all consumers.

If I was using v6, I wouldn't need NAT at all.

I strongly suspect that most consumers use NAT because that's how
their providers configure it and couldn't care less (or even know)
about it.

Craig