----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Hart" <davehart@gmail.com>
Sure, there are folks out there who believe NAT gives them benefits. Some are actually sane (small multihomers avoiding BGP). You stand out as insane for attempting to redefine "transparent" to mean "inbound communication is possible after negotatiation with multiple levels of NAT".
However, it does not invalidate end to end NAT as a counter argument against people insisting on IPv6 so transparent with a lot of legacy NAT used by people who loves it.
That is, end to end transparency can not be a reason to insist on IPv6.
It certainly is, for those of us not arguing by redefinition.
Ah, you're on the "I should be required to allow direct outside connection to my interior machines if I want to be connected to the Internet" crowd. Got it. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274