And there's always IPv8...
Wasn't that IPv9 fun? ;)
From: Tim Chown [mailto:tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk]
Sent: Dienstag, 28. März 2006 07:09
Subject: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 01:54:52AM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
If you deploy IPv6 NAT, you may as well stay with IPv4.
You're the one who convinced me some three years ago that there will be
IPv6 NAT no matter what, what's the message here?
I think there will be IPv6 NAT, because some people will want it. That
doesn't mean it's rational to deploy it :)
Remember: Users don't read drafts/RFCs.
And users don't walk into PC World and say 'I'd like a NAT router for my
home network please'. They probably ask for a broadband modem, or
something that doesn't specify NAT.
We have deployed IPv6 in our enterprise (throughout).
Could you have done it if you did not have the
research dollars^H^H^H^H pounds?
While we ironed out many issues with research funding assistance in 6NET,
I would say the deployment we have now could be done as part of a natural
evolutionary procurement process. The 'cost' is real terms is not that
high. We have had to invest time in updating OSS-type elements, but much
of the rest comes 'out of the box'. I guess we would have had some
training costs as a 'normal' enterprise, but we've helped address that in
the academic community by running hands-on IPv6 workshops (just as the
Internet2 people do for their community).
Phillip, there a few (such as: NAT typically requires hard state, which
is a pain to replicate if there is more than one edge router). NAT is
not completely evil, but it's far from being clean. Pretending that
there are no good reasons against NAT is going to achieve the same as
trying to eliminate it: nothing.
I note Phillip's extremes of view on IPv6 and DNSSEC. It's interesting
to compare how critical these two elements are, and his views on them.
Yes, and since site-locals have been deprecated they will also hijack an
unallocated block of addresses to use as private, same what happened
prior to RFC 1597 for the very same reasons (difficult/pricey to get
There are now ULAs, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4193.txt.
When people will begin to scream bloody murder to use the extended bits
(because v4 is getting near exhaustion) the infrastructure could be
already in place, and then the pressure will be on software developers
to recode their stuff with 128-bit addresses. When that has happened,
then we can make use of all these reserved fields for better purposes,
and possibly allocate PI to everybody which is another pre-requisite to
get rid of NAT.
And there's always IPv8 ;)
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list