From: Joel Jaeggli (no email)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2007 - 11:16:26 EDT
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007, Sam Stickland wrote:
>
>> Personally I hate NAT. But I currently work in a large enterprise
>> environment and NAT is suprisingly popular. I came from a service
>> provider background and some of the attitudes I've discovered towards
>> private addresses in enterprise environments are quite surprising. Aside
>> for the usual proponents of using NAT to hide your internal address
>> infrastructure (which security always seem to insist upon) quite a
>> popular design rule of from seems to be "Only carry public addresses on
>> the public Internet and only carry private addresses on your private
>> network" :-|
>>
>> If an Enterprise doesn't have a great deal for IP addresses that need to
>> be routed on the public internet, and they thing that NAT is a _good_
>> design choice, it seems to me that they don't have a great deal of
>> pressure to move to IPv6.
>
> In fact, and call me crazy, but I can't help but wonder how many enterprises
> out there will see IPv6 and its concept of "real IPs for all machines,
> internal and external!" and respond with "Hell No."
>
> Anyone got any numbers for that? I'm happy to admit I don't. :)
Hence the discussion of site-local (dead), ula, ula-c etc.
However widespread use of private address space in ipv4 costs people
huge amounts of money when you have to merge the business processes of
two or more large enterprise networks.
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
|
|
|