neutrality and nat

Rather than engage in a long discussion to arrive where we already 
are, I would ask you to allow me to point you to 
http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/webiprequest/webiprequest.cgi

section "request overview template" and settle the issue of NATs and 
look into making what we have even better.

(as a personal opinion, raising awareness of IPv6 is probably a good 
thing. Seeing people working with it and fixing the rough edges in 
the technology before widespread deployment would be a great thing to 
see).

Cheers,
Joao

At 10:28 +0200 16/5/02, Gert Doering wrote:
>Hi,
>
>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.
>
>Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
>--
>Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   45114 (45077)
>
>SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
>Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
>80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299