Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)

[Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Hart" <davehart () gmail com>

> Sure, there are folks out there who believe NAT gives them benefits.
> Some are actually sane (small multihomers avoiding BGP). You stand
> out as insane for attempting to redefine "transparent" to mean
> "inbound communication is possible after negotatiation with multiple
> levels of NAT".
>
> > However, it does not invalidate end to end NAT as a counter
> > argument against people insisting on IPv6 so transparent with
> > a lot of legacy NAT used by people who loves it.
> >
> > That is, end to end transparency can not be a reason to
> > insist on IPv6.
>
> It certainly is, for those of us not arguing by redefinition.

Ah, you're on the "I should be required to allow direct outside connection
to my interior machines if I want to be connected to the Internet" crowd.

Got it.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274