neutrality and nat

On Thu, 16 May 2002, Gert Doering wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:32:38PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
> > Personaly I feel it is a pity that this has turned into a "please use NAT".
> 
> It has NOT.  The RIPE185-bis document is clear on this.
> 
> > Therefore, I am proposing to change this policy into:
> > 
> > - stop asking this question
> > - stop promoting NAT
> > 
> > Any views on this ?
> 
> I seriously think that adding a second question "have you
> considered IPv6" (if only to raise awareness "IPv6 is here to
> stay") might be a good thing.
> 
Would it not be very very wise to avoid doing that until *anyone* has
worked out a coherent and workable IPv6 allocation/assignment policy?

-- 
Patrick Evans
Email:	pre at pre.org
CV:	www.pre.org/pre/cv
Bike:	Kawasaki ZXR400L9 (for sale)

"her eyes were like pissholes in the snow - they could melt right through me"