neutrality and nat

I'd agree.

I dont believe it should ever be a "please use nat (because of conservation
of IPv4 space)", although it looks like it may have turned into this.

Maybe a "NAT exists and may work, even partially in your situation, but may
also be your worst nightmare" would be good. To be fair with NAT it has done
alot towards IPv4 space conservation in sitautions where it does work !



Mark


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg at ripe.net]On Behalf Of
> Hans Petter Holen
> Sent: 15 May 2002 19:33
> To: Randy Bush; lir-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: neutrality and nat
>
>
> Hmm, if this is right, I think we should change policy. If I
> remember right
> this whole thing comes from the "Have you concidered using private address
> space" which back when it was formulated in the addressing form was before
> NAT was a wide spread technology.
>
> Personaly I feel it is a pity that this has turned into a "please
> use NAT".
>
> Therefore, I am proposing to change this policy into:
>
> - stop asking this question
> - stop promoting NAT
>
> Any views on this ?
>
> Hans Petter
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com>
> To: <lir-wg at ripe.net>
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:59 PM
> Subject: neutrality and nat
>
>
> | 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
> |
>
>