Subject: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:39:50 -0400

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

    > that's an oxymoron. the basic premis of NAT is fundamnetally broken.

Just out of interest, do you complain about gravity too?

We lost our chance to avoid NAT's when variable length addresses were removed
from TCPv2.5 (IIRC the version number correctly). NAT's are here, like it or
not, and the only question is how to make lemonade out of them. 

	Noel

PS: Speaking of gravity, does anyone have a copy of that great hack CMU memo
about how they were going to turn gravity off in the CS building on the
weekend to help everyone move offices?

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:59:59 -0400

> We lost our chance to avoid NAT's when variable length addresses were
> removed from TCPv2.5 (IIRC the version number correctly). 

or maybe when IAB was shot down after Kobe :)

> NAT's are here, like it or not, and the only question is how to make
> lemonade out of them. 

see my other comment about magic pixie dust.

the way to fix NATs is to obsolete them.  IPv6 is the best shot we have
at that.