quietly....

Tue Feb 1 22:04:54 UTC 2011

On 02/01/2011 11:38 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:36 PM, david raistrick wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dave Israel wrote:
>>
>>> responsibility.  If they want to use DHCPv6, or NAT, or Packet over Avian Carrier to achieve that, let them.  If using them causes them problems, then they should not use them.  It really isn't the community's place to force people not to use tools they find useful because we do not like them.
>> Not to mention that when you take tools -away- from people that solve an existing problem, you'll get a lot of pushback.
>>
> NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
>
> It does not solve any other problem(s).
>
> As such, taking it away when giving you a large enough address space that there is no longer a shortage doesn't
> strike me as taking away a tool that solves a problem. It strikes me as giving you a vastly superior tool that solves
> rather than working around a problem.
>
Don't forget the security benefits!!!1111oneone

*runs*