Moving to IPV6

[Josh Smith]

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Mike O'Dell <mo at 131.ccr.org> wrote:
>
> NAT is not "nasty" - it's a fundamental architectural concept
>
> the nastiness of doing NAT is a reflection of
> the decrepitude of the underlying architecture
>
> creating arbitrary abstraction boundaries is a beautifully
> natural thing to do, and the fact it's ugly in IPv4 and IPv6
> is purely a reflection on IPv4 and IPv6, not the other way around
>
>   -mo
>

NAT is a nasty hack, all of the technology developed to make it
palatable for the consumer, uPNP nad etc are equally nasty.  Wile I
agree ipv6 has some of its own other problems.  I look forward to not
having to worry about NAT and the crud that accompanies it.

Just my 2c.

Thanks,
-- 
Josh Smith
KD8HRX
email/jabber:  juicewvu at gmail.com
phone:  304.237.9369(c)