Phil and all, Already read it, but thanks anyway. And yes it was quite interesting. Phil Regnauld wrote:
Jeffrey A. Williams (jwkckid1) writes:
Frankly I personally view this as a very positive step for IPv6. Breaches a ideological technical divide that has existed for nearly a decade, which is a good first step in gaining more acceptance for IPv6. The downside is that LEA's won't like it very much for obvious reasons.
Read Alain Durand's proposal for a very interesting solution on the transition for large broadband providers:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-durand-dual-stack-lite-00
(it is cited in the article and is by far more interesting than the whole NAT or no NAT discussion).
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827