smd(_at_)ebone(_dot_)net (Sean Doran) writes:
John Kristoff <jtk(_at_)depaul(_dot_)edu> writes:
| To do nothing can be far more dangerous (as proven by the disdain
| for NAT).
The disdain for NAT is non-uniform. Personally, I rather like NAT.
Of course you would. You work for a provider and can get all the
address space you want.
I'm afraid Sean is not working for an ISP.
NAT vendors will also tell everyone that the world needs more NAT.
NAT vendoes should tell everyone that the world needs more NAT,
because subscribers of IPv6 addresses only need 6-to-4 NAT to access
resources in IPv4 Internet.
Who doesn't like NAT?
From my experience, network providers which are trying to offer
broadband Internet access do not like NAT.
A well known problem is that stream applications are unlikely to
pass through NAT.
However, more serious problem is that they can not afford NAT boxes
with enough performance.
IPv6 and IPv4 will coexist for a time; the topology of the (large)
IPv4 Internet and the (tiny) IPv6 Internet are discontiguous, and
is unlikely to cease being so before IPv6 curls up and dies.
The panacea is to fully use up IPv4 address space and increase IPv4
global routing table size with extensive use of routing-based
We are doing well to that direction.
I'm perfectly fine with using v4 as a link layer to connect together
end sites, with v6 being used over that link layer.
That's like having Internet over telephone network and is no good.
FAITH and 6to4 allow us to move in that direction.
That's a waste of effort. Rely on NAT, there.