neutrality and nat

At 19:52 +0100 14/5/02, Stuart Prevost wrote:
>Hello Joao,
>
>Shouldn't RIPE NCC modify it's questions to say have you considered IPv6
>instead of asking if they have thought of using NAT.  If RIPE would like to
>further IPv6 shouldn't it asking it's customers (IPv4) about using IPv6!!!!!
>:-)

LIRs ask us to be technology agnostic when dealing with requests :-)

Joao

>Stuart
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joao Luis Silva Damas" <joao at ripe.net>
>To: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com>; <lir-wg at ripe.net>
>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:17 PM
>Subject: Re: neutrality and nat
>
>
>>  Hi randy,
>>
>>  the policy advice set by the LIRs has been, to the best of my
>>  knowledge, to ask requesters whether they have considered using
>>  private addressing for their network, not to force anyone to use it.
>>  Just ask, nothing else.
>>
>>  Where have you seen that presentation?
>>
>>  Joao
>>
>>
>>  At 11:59 +0000 13/5/02, Randy Bush wrote:
>>  >i just watched a ripe presentation which claimed to be technology
>neutral,
>>  >yet advised isps to use nats without telling how they break applications,
>>  >blah blah blah.  this is not neutral, and is, imiho, really bad advice to
>>  >give to innocent people.  is this ripe or lir policy?
>>  >
>>  >randy
>>
>>