IPv6 news

Sun Oct 16 12:06:27 UTC 2005

The problem with that (and many premises) is that we need to remember these
arguments and foreseen "problems" were all dreamed up 10 or so years ago.
The status of everyone's network, everyone's business needs and everyone's
network design (and capabilities) were drastically different that long ago.

It's a solution that made sense for far different reasons when it was
created then it makes sense for now.

*shrug*

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of Paul
Vixie
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:08 AM
To: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: IPv6 news

drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) writes:

> On Oct 15, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Tony Li wrote:
> > When we explored site multihoming (not rehoming) in the ways that 
> > you seem to suggest, it was effectively a set of coordinated NAT 
> > boxes around the periphery of the site.  That was rejected quite 
> > quickly.
> 
> What were the reasons for rejection?

i wasn't there for that meeting.  but when similar things were proposed at
other meetings, somebody always said "no! we have to have end-to-end, and if
we'd wanted nat-around-every-net we'd've stuck with IPv4."
--
Paul Vixie