Re: Nat

[Sander Steffann <sander () steffann nl>]

Hi Matthew,

> The mix of having to do this crazy thing of gateway announcements
> from one place, DNS from somewhere else, possibly auto-assigning
> addresses from a router, but maybe getting them over DHCPv6. It's
> just confusing and unnecessary and IMHO isn't helpful for
> persuading people to move to IPv6. Especially when everyone
> already understands DHCP in the v4 world.
>
> Both RAs and DHCP have their place and can be really useful
> together or apart in different situations, but witholding key
> functionality from DHCP "beacuse you can do it in a RA instead"
> isn't helping the v6 cause.

Have you ever tried to deploy IPv6 (even if only in a lab environment)? I have worked with several companies (ISP and 
enterprise) and once they stop thinking "I want to do everything in IPv6 in exactly the same way as I have always done 
in IPv4" and actually look at the features that IPv6 provides them they are usually much happier with IPv6 than they 
were with IPv4.

I am sure that a century ago people who were used to horse and buggy transport thought that cars were annoyingly 
complex and that having to put petrol in instead of hay was a huge problem. But I am very glad that in the end they 
adapted instead of convincing other people to make cars run on hay ;)

Just joking of course, but seriously: we need to look at what the best solution for the future is, not at ways of 
avoiding having to learn something new/different.

Cheers,
Sander