Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
Thus spake "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
NAT-PT really needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. It
provides all of the disadvantages of IPv4+NAT with all of the
transition costs of IPv6.
Indeed it does. However, it has significant benefits as well:
cannot agree more. i do not care if it is based on TCP/UDP relaying
(per session) or NAT-PT (per packet), but IPv6-to-IPv4 translators
have its own benefits. and of course drawbacks, but the drawback
is much smaller than conventional IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT as we have an escape
plan (use native IPv6).
translators do have benefits, and can be mostly harmless with applied
judiciously. the problems result from imposing translators in the
signal path to/from a significant number of hosts that are running
NAT-PT style translators can be just fine when used with a small number
of specific hosts for which it is known that the applications on those
hosts won't be harmed by the interposition of NAT-PT. though frankly,
most users aren't capable of doing such analysis - just like most users
don't understand the harm that NAT does.
Ietf mailing list