> From: Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
> the problems that NAT causes, and that having suffcient address space
> (a.k.a. IPv6) solves
This comment seems to posit that insufficient address space is the only thing
driving deployment of NATs (other than the modestly effective firewalls that
NAT provides), and that's just not correct.
Until the IETF fully understands and appreciates the forces which are driving
the deployment of NAT boxes - which have been spectacularly successful in the
marketplace, far more so than the purported official alternative - they will
continue to eclipse said purported official alternative.
* lack of address space
* to avoid of renumbering (high perceived cost)
* stateful firewall
* having internal addresses that are meaningless on the outside
Now IPv6 gives you the address space.
We have lots of mechanisms now, if people were willing to
deploy them, they ease the cost of renumbering. e.g. DHCP,
stateless autoconf, DNS, secure DNS UPDATE, DNS DNAME, support
for multiple prefixes at the lower levels. Yes, more work
could be done to ease the costs of renumbering. Most of
that however is vendor specific at this stage.
We have stateful firewalls.
We have IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses.
The biggest problem is IPv4 mindset, with NAT being just one
example of it.
Mark
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf