Re: Backward compatibility
Puzzled by the downvotes for the above comment. Could someone explain which bit they disagree with?Nextweek's statements are all factually correct. You might not LIKE them, you may think they were bad decisions, but it's true: NAT is/was a dirty hack, and it's not required by IPv6. I do hope this isn't still about people clinging to the idea that NAT is a security control? (in 2017? Nahhhh... surely not.... ?)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
