RE: IPv6 NAT?
2008-02-15 12:44:06
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Paul Francis
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:44 AM
To: Dan York; Rémi Després
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: IPv6 NAT?
I wonder if standard approaches to NAT for IPv6 just isn't
going to be much
of an issue even if the IETF ignores it. Since NAT for IPv6
is much simpler
than for IPv4, a bunch of the issues associated with IPv4 NAT
usage don't
exist. Like, there should be no need for port translation.
No need to time
out mappings. For the most part, NAT for IPv6 should be just a simple
substitution of prefix A for prefix B.
Such 1-for-1 address rewriting does not provide the topology
hiding that many people seem to like of their existing NAPT
devices, nor does such 1-for-1 address rewriting obscure the
number of hosts behind the NAT. Such obscuring can be useful
for certain businesses (there are, today, small ISPs in certain
countries that do not want their country's PTT to know the
ISP's actual market share, for fear tarrifs or advertising to
compete with the small ISP will be increased).
-d
What, exactly, are
the range of
choices that NAT vendors need to agree on?
PF
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Dan York
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:36 AM
To: Rémi Després
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT?
Remi,
On Feb 15, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
Dan York wrote :
I.e., either we assume no NAT in IPv6,
or create a NAT standard. Those
are the only sane options.
Just to be clear, that particular text was written by
Iljitsch van Beijnum, although I agree with him on it.
Somehow it can be both, but NOT at the same time :
In the IPv6-only world, to be reached at the end of the
transition period, NATs should IMO be prohibited.
I think we will have to respectfully disagree on this one.
Count me in the camp that says that NAT will *NEVER* go away
as long as corporate enterprises believe it is of value to
them (as I noted in my previous message). Even were we to
somehow "prohibit" it, enterprises would still do it... or
our stance on prohibiting it would simply be yet another
barrier for them to seriously consider moving to IPv6.
NAT is here. NAT is loved (by many). NAT will be with us
until long after we are all long gone.
The question is whether we standardize how NAT is done with
IPv6 or whether we just let the vendors go wild with it as
they did for IPv4.
My 2 cents,
Dan
--
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork(_at_)voxeo(_dot_)com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
Bring your web applications to the phone.
Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: IPv6 NAT?, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 NAT?, Spencer Dawkins
- RE: IPv6 NAT?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: IPv6 NAT?, Christian Huitema
- RE: IPv6 NAT?, Dan Wing
- RE: IPv6 NAT?,
Dan Wing <=
- Re: IPv6 NAT?, Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: IPv6 NAT?, Dan Wing
- Re: IPv6 NAT?, Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: IPv6 NAT?, David Kessens
- Re: IPv6 NAT?, Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: IPv6 NAT?, Keith Moore
- Re: IPv6 NAT?, Rémi Després
- RE: IPv6 NAT?, Dan Wing
- Message not available
- RE: IPv6 NAT?, Dan Wing
- Re: IPv6 NAT?, Rémi Després
|
|
|