Your long term view is irrelevant if you are unable to meet short term
challenges.
very true. but at the same time, it's not enough to meet short term
challenges without providing a path to something that is sustainable in
the long term.
This is reasonable, but there is no realistic path to ipv6 that the
known world can reasonably be expected to follow.
That's because people keep thinking that there needs to be a path from
IPv4 to IPv6 that makes sense for all applications. No such path
exists, because applications vary widely both in how they use the
network and in how much existing infrastructure they have. No single
path makes sense for all of them.
NAT is a done deal. It's well supported at network edges. It solves
the addressing issue, which was what the market wanted. It voted for NAT with
dollars and time. It is the long term solution - not because it is better, but
because it is.
NAT is a dead end. If the Internet does not develop a way to obsolete
NAT, the Internet will die. It will gradually be replaced by networks
that are more-or-less IP based but which only run a small number of
applications, poorly, and expensively.
Saying that it is a deficient mechanism may be true, but it
won't slow or change deployment. We can say that using workaround solutions
such as static natting ports, etc. are akin to putting lipstick on a chicken,
but the ipv6 vs. NAT battle is over in the marketplace.
the battle isn't over as long as vendors want to keep selling products.
the shortcomings of NATs are now widely acknowledged. there is a
market opportunity for a better solution.
There may be specific applications where ipv6 is deployed and working
well (or so I hear). But NAT is ubiquitous. It's sort of like discussing
Lisp vs. c/c++.
no it's not, because any program that can be written in LISP can be
written in C/C++, or vice versa. OTOH, it is not in general possible to
write a program that works in a non-NATted network and move that program
to a NATted network unless you build additional infrastructure "in the
core" of the NATted network that supports tunneling through the NATs and
layers a new addressing scheme on top of the overlay network.
now if what you're saying is that we need a standard NAT extension
protocol that does that, I might agree. though IMHO the easiest way to
do that is to make the NAT boxes speak IPv6.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf