On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:16:57PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
maybe this is because "protocol purity zealots" take a long
term view and want to preserve the flexibility of the net
"market" to continue to grow and support new applications,
whereas the NAT vendors are just eating their seed corn.
Your long term view is irrelevant if you are unable to meet short term
very true. but at the same time, it's not enough to meet short term
challenges without providing a path to something that is sustainable in
the long term.
This is reasonable, but there is no realistic path to ipv6 that the
known world can reasonably be expected to follow.
NAT is a done deal. It's well supported at network edges. It solves
the addressing issue, which was what the market wanted. It voted for NAT with
dollars and time. It is the long term solution - not because it is better, but
because it is.
Saying that it is a deficient mechanism may be true, but it
won't slow or change deployment. We can say that using workaround solutions
such as static natting ports, etc. are akin to putting lipstick on a chicken,
but the ipv6 vs. NAT battle is over in the marketplace. Even router vendors
aren't supporting ipv6 well (there was a talk which hit on this at NANOG 34:
There may be specific applications where ipv6 is deployed and working
well (or so I hear). But NAT is ubiquitous. It's sort of like discussing
Lisp vs. c/c++. Lisp may be better, but for most practical discussions it's
not worth pursuing - the market has chosen c/c++ for the _vast_ majority
of applications. Any discussions are either relegated to very specific
niches or are historical, like non-qwerty keyboards (for english speakers).
So the real question is: Given NAT, what are the best solutions to
the long term challenges?
Ietf mailing list