From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
> 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.
Even if those who dislike NAT are correct the problems caused can be solved
with minor technical adjustments at the application layer.
This is not only a distraction, it is a waste of valuable political capital
necessary to deploy IPv6.
We need the support of network and security administrators. Deciding that we
are in a position to educate them as to the importance of the pure end-to-end
vision is unnecessary and defeats the primary goal.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf