NAT is an astonishingly horrific idea that should have never been implemented, and his arguement about "one valuable customer still on IPv4" reaks of the same nonsense that has held back web development for years with IE6.
Absolutely. Being behind NAT at home, it is a pain having to open up ports on the router in order to run anything that requires an inbound connection. At the same time, it is rather comforting to know that making an inbound connection is so hard.
What do you think of the suggestion made by the author of the article that, even if we had IPv6 everywhere, we'd still put a lot of networks behind NAT, for reasons of security.
"What do you think of the suggestion made by the author of the article that, even if we had IPv6 everywhere, we'd still put a lot of networks behind NAT, for reasons of security."
It's utter bullshit. Stateful firewalls will of course continue to exist; doing Network Address Translation in addition will be completely pointless.
