[address-policy-wg] Mandating NAT toward the final /8

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:59:02PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> >>	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00
> >>
> >>You can see the only reason to deploy IPv6 to keep the freedom of
> >>end to end transparency is now non-exsitent.
> 
> > Given that all currently available operating systems fully support IPv6,
> 
> The reality is that there is no one with meaningful operational
> experience of IPv6.

This assumption is completely unfounded, and quite obviously wrong
(I know at least one counter-example).

[..]
> > and none of them support the modifications necessary to "help the NAT
> > gateway", I can't see how this would be a step forward.
> Read the draft. It is implemented and working on NETBSD5.0.

It's not committed - and even if it was, the amount of NetBSD machines
out there is not relevant for home user deployments, where IPv4 shortage
hits first.  Come back when Microsoft has implemented this, and it's
operational relevant enough that it's time to start discussing its
impact on address policy.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090716/3f50082f/attachment.sig>