On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:02 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: ....
The main drivers behind the desire for NAT in IPv6 you've heard before, but I'll repeat them for the sake of clarity:
5. Some industries (PCI compliance) *require* NAT as part of the audit-able requirements. Yes, that should get changed. But until it does, (at least some) enterprises are going to be between a rock and a hard place. As Bill says, the place to get this fixed is not to tell the enterprises they are doing it wrong, but to change the requirements that auditors measure against. I would cheer the effort to engage those bodies to get them to understand that NAT is not the way (for it is not). This does not mean ignore the problem. It does not mean to tell people they are doing it wrong. It means active engagement with such organizations. And it is hard, policy type, work,