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: Marshall Eubanks
  • Date: Thu Oct 04 07:17:34 2007


On Oct 4, 2007, at 4:56 AM, Mark Newton wrote:


On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:37:22AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

The crucial difference is that there is an upgrade path. There is no
upgrade path from a network with NAT to a network where you don't
have to work around NAT. That's why it's so important to keep the NAT
in IPv4 and not let it sneak into IPv6.


Most of us debating this with you _don't care_ if NAT happens to exist
on the IPv6 Internet.  It's on the IPv4 Internet and we still manage
to use the network for the things we want to use it for, so we're
mounting an empirical case to say that portrayal of NAT that you're
presenting is false.

Plus, it may give you a legal defense !

In this trial

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-testimony-.html

her defense basically boil down to, because my home network was NATed, who knows who
was using that IP address ?

Regards (with tongue firmly in cheek)
Marshall


Basically, your argument boils down to aesthetics.  You don't like
NAT.  You want it to go away.  Fine, I don't like it either and I
wouldn't mind if it went away...

But funnily enough, I can remember having exactly these same
arguments with people about IPv4 NAT. And y'know what?  They
didn't make a lick of difference, because NAT could be (and was)
deployed unilaterally, without any semblance of global coordination.

{Your|My} aesthetic sense isn't actually in charge here. Moan about
it all you want, but it's _inevitable_ that every tool in the toolbox,
including NAT-PT, will be used to smooth-over IPv6 adoption challenges.
And if you don't like it, you're just gonna have to cope.

Your alternatives are:

  - NAT-PT with well-understood standards and operational guidelines
    aimed at maximizing interoperability;  and

- NAT-PT without well-understood standards and operational guidelines,
where interoperability is a flukish crapshoot, where random stuff
just fails to work because there are no agreed-upon ways to use
application awareness at layer-4 to work around breakage.

In that universe, where you have to pick one, which one would
you rather see in widespread deployment?  And if it's the first
alternative, what kind of results do you think you'll get by opposing
efforts to develop standards for NAT?

- mark
[ wondering how long it'll be before I'll be able to buy a CEF-
accelerated TCAM-equipped layer-4 switching blade for a 7600 :-) ]


--
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