Re: [BEHAVE] RFC6147 and RFC7208 interoperability issues

[Klaus Frank <[e-mail]>]

Instead of reminding people on here about how you disapprove of NATs 
your time may be better spent going after the k8s community (and others) 
and talking them out of wanting to further adoption and encourage the 
use of NAT66. We cannot change the past. But we've a change to steer the 
future and avoid repeating mistakes...

On 2022-02-07 19:10, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 2/7/22 13:06, David Conrad wrote:
>
>> I suppose I don’t find continually putting my fingers in my ears and 
>> chanting “NAT is bad” any time the topic comes up particularly 
>> productive. YMMV.
> I suppose I don't find constantly trying to find solutions to every 
> new problem that NATs cause particularly productive either, which is 
> why I occasionally remind people that that's counterproductive.
>
>> It’s not about encouraging spread. That ship sailed long, long ago. 
>> It is about accepting reality and coming up with solutions, as ad hoc 
>> as may be required, to reduce the pain that that reality entails.
>
> If NATs weren't reality, there would be no need to get rid of them.   
> But ultimately that is the only solution.
>
> Keith
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave