[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Fri Mar 26 16:18:55 EDT 2010

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> No... I'm not saying we need  a reason to get rid of NAT. I'm saying that
>> NAT should be allowed to become obsolete with IPv4.
> That word "alllowed"... I do not think it means what you think it means.
> I believe that it means exactly what I intended per the definition below.
> admit (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.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list