From: Marshall Eubanks (no email)
Date: Thu Oct 04 2007 - 07:14:00 EDT
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:
> (W)
> Network Engineer Email:
> (H)
> Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999
> "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
|
|
|