On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 18:46, Matthew Petach via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
My apologies--I didn't mean to come off as moving the goalposts. I was simply trying to point out that the "NAT is cancer!" war cry for IPv6 (without offering a better/more functional alternative) is a big part of why small businesses are so resistant to moving to IPv6.
Whatever problems real or imaginary we have with NAT, DHCP, whatever, seems unnecessary to couple with the IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack problem. If we try to solve all the problems at once, we will solve none of the problems. If we let people do with IPv6 (and we do, all these things people complain about are implemented) what they do with IPv4, and focus on getting back to single stack in this train, we just might be able to solve it. We can hop on other trains to solve other problems, there is no need for these trains to move lockstep. -- ++ytti