North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IPv6 allocatin (was Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting)
In article <39B0343B.7FECFB0E@nominum.com>, "David R. Conrad" <David.Conrad@nominum.com> wrote: > Christian, > > > The point was a NAT'ed (masqueraded) network attempting to > > communicate with another NAT'ed (masqueraded) network. That > > does NOT work for the vast majority of people on the Internet. > > Hmmm. If you never try something, can it be said to not work? > > Until such a scenario becomes _far_ more commonplace that it is today, I > doubt anyone (other than end-to-end purists and the folks who have been > bitten) will care. It is a basic principle often used in both protocol design and ethics that one cannot endorse a course of action that, if all were to follow it, causes undesirable consequences. If NAT is really the future, we must prepare for a world where NAT is carried to its logical conclusion; all sites use NAT. If that ultimate future is undesirable, then we should not even start down the road; we must conclude that NAT is not the future. It can, then, be at best an expedient hack. If we accept that peer-to-peer communication is a design goal of the Internet, then to make a convincing argument that NAT is the future, you must outline how two sites behind a NAT can communicate with each other conveniently. Otherwise: "That does not scale." -- Shields.