ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

2000-04-23 10:50:02
At 02:10 PM 4/22/00, Keith Moore wrote:
> Look, I have on my disk a file from June, 1992 (yes, that's not a typo -
> *1992*) called "Problems with NAT".

This is probably a naive viewpoint but I have always viewed NAT as a hack that would allow us to continue to use 32bit addresses until we could deploy a larger address. When this discussion was going on back in 1992 (yes, I remember the arguments) NAT was proposed as an interim solution, not a final solution. So, whatever happened to IPv6? 128 bit addresses would certainly allow us to continue using IP addresses as endpoint identifiers thus eliminating the need for NAT. It seems that this is a more reasonable solution than trying to make NAT work under all circumstances.

I hate to say it but if Microsoft deployed IPv6 in its OS products, this discussion would probably be moot because the endpoint users would upgrade most of the endpoints for us thus just requiring the backbone to run IPv4 and IPv6 routing in parallel for a time.

Never mind.  I am sure I am just being naive.


Brian Lloyd                                    Lucent Technologies
brian(_at_)lloyd(_dot_)com                                3461 Robin Lane, 
Suite 1
http://www.livingston.com                      Cameron Park, CA  95682
+1.530.676.6513 - voice                        +1.530.676.3442 - fax