the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Wed Apr 28 22:07:15 UTC 2010

In message <01F57362-8092-48CB-8336-15B9CC1713C2 at virtualized.org>, David Conrad
 writes:
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Carl Rosevear wrote:
> > I don't understand why anyone thinks NAT should be a fundamental part =
> of the v6 internet=20
> 
> Perhaps the ability to change service providers without having to =
> renumber?

We have that ability already.  Doesn't require NAT.

> Regards,
> -drc
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org