neutrality and nat

> Rather than engage in a long discussion to arrive where we
> already are

conservatives might consider this much better than short or no
discussion to arrive at some place new.  :-)/2

> I would ask you to allow me to point you to 
> http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/webiprequest/webiprequest.cgi

when someone to whom i am begging asks "have you considered X,"
this is taken as close to "we expect you to use X if you can."

but the issue i raised is not what is on the form, but what is
communicated in presentations and training.  what the audience took
away from the afnog presentation was "nat is a desirable approach
that we think you should use if possible."

> (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).

<grin>

randy