"Sean" == Sean Doran <smd(_at_)EBONE(_dot_)NET> writes:
Sean> I should have waited until Perry had spoken, because now that he
Sean> has pointed out the extreme cost of NAT, I have seen the light!
Sean> NATs are expensive. They have gross side-effects. Even Noel
Sean> Chiappa, my guru, says that they are an architectural hack.
Sean> So, why are people deploying them?
Sean> They are so awful, that it must only happen when people have NO
Sean> OTHER OPTION.
Let's seperate things as public networks vs private networks.
"Public networks"
IP addresses cost money and the people deploying NATs in places like
hotels are not smart enough to buy a pool of IP addresses and use host
routing.
For private network (e.g. corporate networks) there are other reasons.
But, availability of IP addresses is a major one.
My suggestion is that all NAT products should provide IPv6 with 6to4
support. Instead of doing ESPUDP to get IPsec around NATs, we should do
put ESP over IPv6. This requires the same amount of effort (new clients, new
servers), but leverages IPv6 into the equation. 6to4 is very cool.
] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions|gigabit is no[
] Michael Richardson, Solidum Systems Oh where, oh where has|problem with[
] mcr(_at_)solidum(_dot_)com www.solidum.com the little fishy
gone?|PAX.port 1100[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [