North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

  • From: Mark Newton
  • Date: Wed Oct 03 05:12:50 2007

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:07:19PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

 > >IPv6 will happen.  Eventually.  And it'll have deficiencies which
 > >some believe are "severe", just like the IPv4 Internet.  Such as
 > >NAT.  Deal with it.
 > If you want NAT, please come up with a standards document that  
 > describes how it works and how applications can work around it. Just  
 > implementing it and letting the broken applications fall where they  
 > may is so 1990s.

Ah, how obstructive of you.  "We can't possibly do this until a 
multi-volume standards document has been written which encompasses
and solves every conceivable problem with absolute perfection.  Have
it on my desk by 5pm."

No, that's not how we do things on the Internet.  It _is_ how they
do things on those old-school telco networks you keep telling us
to avoid emulating, but it's not our way.  Never has been, likely
never will be (and, indeed, I'd put it to you that the reason we're
all talking about IPv6 in 2007 instead of _using_ it is because 
the IETF tried the old-school way instead of the Internet way to
solve the running-out-of-addresses problem)

 > >If you believe that v4 exhaustion is a pressing problem, then I'd
 > >humbly suggest that 2007 is a good time to shut the hell up about
 > >how bad NAT is and get on with fixing the most pressing problem.
 > "NAT is not a problem" and "running out of IPv4 address space is a  
 > problem" can't both be true at the same time. With enough NAT  
 > lubrication you can basically extend the IPv4 address space by 16  
 > bits so you don't need IPv6.

Don't you think that's a bit of an oversimplification?  With 
respect, Iljitsch, if you want a "long and bloody argument" about
IPv6 NAT, and you engineer one by constructing straw men to argue
against, my guess is that the blood on the walls at the end of the
process will be yours.

 > >If we're successful, there'll be plenty of time to go back and
 > >re-evaluate NAT afterwards when IPv6 exhaustion is a distant memory.
 > Right. Building something that can't meet reasonable requirements  
 > first and then getting rid of the holes worked so well for the email  
 > spam problem.

My email works.  How about yours?

  - mark

Mark Newton                               Email:  [email protected] (W)
Network Engineer                          Email:  [email protected]  (H)
Internode Systems Pty Ltd                 Desk:   +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223