Re: Re: IPv6 only devices in home network

(I assume this is Caitlin Bestler's statement?)

> The problem with Mr. Moore's arguments is that he is trying to transition
> from what he thinks the IPv4 network *should* have been to an IPv6 network. 

It always amuses me when people publically state their assumptions about what 
I'm trying to do - especially when those assumptions are inconsistent with 
what I'm actually doing.  

The statement quoted above is particularly silly.  If the IPv4 network had been 
what I think it "should" have been, there would have been no need for IPv6,
nor for any transition tools.

Transition tools like 6to4 and my 6overNAT proposal (superficially similar to 
Teredo) were clearly and explicitly designed to transition from a world which 
includes NATs to one which does not include (or need) NATs - in other words, 
a world which supports efficient and robust operation of a wider variety of 
applications.

Keith

p.s. It's one thing to be endlessly pushing the same rock up the same hill 
only to have it fall back down; it's quite another to claim that the need to 
endlessly push the rock up the hill is somehow natural or beneficial.