"Keith" == Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
Keith> I don't know that NATs have hindered progress of IPv6 nearly as
Keith> much as they've hindered progress of certain kinds of
Keith> applications. NATs have delayed the exhaustion of IPv4 space, but
I must agree with the accessment.
To get rid of them, we need to be able to get IPv6 address space for
essentially zero cost. As long as address space is scarce, people will
attempt to conserve it by using NAPTs.
Note, I make a distinction between routable address space (which may be
scarce due to size of routing tables) and address space. If I had available
address space for my internal networks that never (what I think now) need to
talk to the Internet, then I'd use it. If I had to connect things to the
Internet, etc. then there would be no problem.
So, my opinion is that the bottleneck for deploying IPv6, and therefore
getting rid of NAPTs is the cost of IPv6 address space.
... 3ffe:1ce1:0:fe50::29 (alas, from experimental space)
:!mcr!: | Solidum Systems Corporation, http://www.solidum.com
Michael Richardson |For a better connected world,where data flows faster<tm>
Personal: http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html
mailto:mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ottawa(_dot_)on(_dot_)ca
mailto:mcr(_at_)solidum(_dot_)com