Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)

[Dave Hart <davehart () gmail com>]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Because we still have enough IPv4 addresses, because most
> users are happy with legacy NAT and because some people
> loves legacy NAT, there is not much commercial motivation.

Sure, there are folks out there who believe NAT gives them benefits.
Some are actually sane (small multihomers avoiding BGP).  You stand
out as insane for attempting to redefine "transparent" to mean
"inbound communication is possible after negotatiation with multiple
levels of NAT".

> However, it does not invalidate end to end NAT as a counter
> argument against people insisting on IPv6 so transparent with
> a lot of legacy NAT used by people who loves it.
>
> That is, end to end transparency can not be a reason to
> insist on IPv6.

It certainly is, for those of us not arguing by redefinition.

Cheers,
Dave Hart