At 05:39 PM 1/21/2001, Keith Moore wrote:
> >NAT is an architecturally bankrupt strategy - the more you try to fix
> >it, the more complex the architecture becomes, the harder it becomes to
> >write and configure applications, and the the more brittle the network
> >becomes. There is no way to fix the problems created by NAT without
> >a global name space for points in the network topology, and this is
> >the thing that NAT fundamentally destroys.
>
> I agree with that, but see no other alternative (other than waiting for
> IPv6) than improving communication through NAT piece by piece.
The best way to improve communication through NAT is for the NAT
boxes to support IPv6 routing and 6to4.
The IETF has done it's job with 6to4, but like you said we can't force
people to deploy it. But let's stop and think about 6to4. Aren't some of
the same "tricks" or ALG's that are planned to make applications work with
IPv4 NAT, applicable to 6to4? If so, then we must find solutions now since
6to4 could be with us for many years.