The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring. All
one has to do is apply for them from the RIR. Getting a service provider to
route them is a different problem, especially when they profit from running
your traffic through their NAT.
Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: philemon [mailto:philemon(_at_)drtvnet(_dot_)cg]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:40 AM
To: Hannes Tschofenig; Keith Moore
Cc: Stephen Sprunk; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Paul Hoffman
Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
Hi All
Just an input about the NAT issue handled here. The 'war' against NAT
is
senseless before succeeding the one against IPv4. I mean, as far as the
v4
protocol runs on our networks, NAT will remain as a useful tool for
those
who need it, of course for specific applications. In developing
countries
for example where IPv6 entry is very slow -add to a scarcity of IPv4
addresses- we are always using NAT, and are happy to do so as:
1- No enough IPv4 addresses
2-No need for the specific applications for those networks
3-No alternative solution currently 'in the hands'.
Thanks
Philemon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes(_dot_)Tschofenig(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net>
To: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Cc: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen(_at_)sprunk(_dot_)org>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Paul
Hoffman"
<paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
Hi Keith,
Keith Moore wrote:
Most application protocols work just fine behind NAT. FTP works
with
an ugly work-around. The main protocol that breaks down is SIP.
there are a couple of problems with this analysis:
one is that it considers only application protocols that are in
widespread use. there are lots of applications that are used by
limited
communities that are nevertheless important.
Namely?
and of course, since NATs
are so pervasive, most of the applications that are in widespread
use
have been made to work with NAT (often at tremendous expense, and
reduced reliability).
Could you explain the tremendous expense a bit more?
another problem is that it only considers current applications. a
big
part of the problem with NAT is that it inhibits the
development/deployment of useful new applications.
As Phillip stated, I don't see the problem with future applications.
Compare this with the security aspects that are taken care of much
more
than before when developing new applications NAT traversal is just
another
thing to think about as a protocol designer.
Ciao
Hannes
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf