On 11/21/2004 2:48 PM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
cdel> This is difficult to confirm (or deny) as current research into
why users buy NAT's is not clear
When you say "buy" you are adding another layer here. Most small devices
come with NAT technology built-in, so there are lots of reasons why people
"use" NATs that are separate from any kind of purchasing decision. On the
other hand, if folks did have to shell out money for NAT versus real
addresses, then adoption rates would probably be somewhat different than
they are now.
For one thing, It is free for SOHO users (NAT is bundled with all their
devices already) and they would have to pay extra for multiple addresses
from their low-end service provider. This won't change until IPv6 is
equally supported by the devices and the providers, and when the providers
are willing to hand out small blocks of v6 addresses at no extra cost.
That probably won't happen without a coordinated push between industry,
governments, and investors.
Small businesses can't get portable IPv6 or IPv4 addresses, so there is no
difference between NAT or not. If they want numbering independence at the
local level, the low cost of SOHO NAT is the clear winner over the higher
cost of specialty gear and management for IPv6. This won't change until
the routing table can handle a magitude more routes (at a minimum).
Large orgs have multiple tiers of management and expense sources. While
they may be using the high gear and have the propellor heads on staff
already for doing IPv6, the departmental manager doesn't want to here that
he can't use that $30 print server on his network because of some kind of
technical double-talk. This is basically the SOHO argument multiplied.
There are doubtless a million variations on this (markets are elections,
and people vote according to their priorities and values, which are
somewhat unique to each), but in general it boils down to a lack of
availability. IPv6 has to reach the same kind of unavoidable prevalance as
free NAT technology has today in order for people to start using it in the
same volume, and this is becomes increasingly true as you move towards the
My feeling is that there has to be a group effort to change this, and it
needs across-the-board cooperation. VCs need to be shown that
bidirectional reachability is in their ultimate interest, in that it opens
the door for new technologies and products. Small carriers need to be
convinced that providing lots of addresses to each user won't bankrupt
them or make them non-competitive (probably the place where government has
the most to contribute in this whole thing is underwriting loans against
IPv6 equipment in SOHO ISPs). Edge gear that provides NAT technology also
needs to support v6 technolgy, and so does edge gear that doesn't. It
needs to be a lot easier to get private routable space so that small orgs
aren't implicitly forced to use NATs. Etcetera.
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Ietf mailing list