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)
At 04:07 PM 10/2/2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote:
By policy, I generally block file transfer over IM at security boundaries where possible, whether NAT is in use. End users on corporate networks do not need to be using IM as a file transfer mechanism.
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.
Been there, and done that. Please go read RFC 3235, and read the other RFCs that came out of the NAT Working Group in the IETF. This WG documented how things worked, and how to write apps and such. NAT itself had been in widespread use for a long time before, though implementations varied in both function and terminology. Having a common point of reference, and recommendations for living with it seemed to many like a good idea. It appears the documents have not been widely read.
Just implementing it and letting the broken applications fall where they may is so 1990s.
Running out of address space may well have been a problem a decade ago without NAT. You and I don't know, largely because none of us really knows how many computers are behind NAT boxes today. But the IETF was not ready to provide a replacement for IPv4 at the time. So NAT bought the IP protocol stack enough time to dominate the marketplace.
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.
This is a rather disingenuous argument. You might look at the history of TCP, which has had several tweaks over the years as more was learned. In trying to have every duck perfectly in a row, IPv6 is quite late to the party. Even NASA launches deep space probes before operational software is finished, and updates it in flight... (OK, so maybe that's a bad example, given math errors and a certain crash on mars).