Keith Moore wrote:
it's not at all clear whether NAT provided additional time for
IPng development or whether such time was really needed. IPv6 was
largely developed before NAT enjoyed significant deployment, and
arguably NAT has delayed adoption of IPv6. and because of the NAT
deployment it is now somewhat "untimely" to deploy applications like
IP telephony. whereas if IPv6 had been adopted a bit earlier
(because NAT had not filled the vacuum, so to speak) IP telephony
would work just fine with it.
True, but you also have to take into account that IPv4 is mature
technology (and was so at the time of NAT deployment). The user demand
for Internet access made NAT a more attractive avenue because the
industry had confidence that it would work without them having to
make changes. If you could sell a NAT-compliant box you had an
eager market; not quite so with an IPv6 compliant box.
of course, IPv6 might have moved along slowly even without NAT.
but it would probably have moved faster had NATs not existed.
Maybe. Hard to say. Depends on how comfortable the industry would
have been with it.
best thing I can say about NAT is that it motivated me to work on 6to4.