neutrality and nat

Which was Randy's point, so if your technology agnostic why do you ask if
the requesting LIR has thought of using NATs!!!!


> 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
> >>
> >>
>
>