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 04:39 PM 9/28/2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-sep-2007, at 6:25, Jari Arkko wrote:
NAT grew out of need. It didn't grow up in the IETF. We did have a NAT WG, to document, define common terminology and guidelines. We took a lot of heat for just documenting what was out there. The marketplace resulted in the success of NAT. Even if there had been limitless address space, it's unlikely NAT would have been avoided.
Rather than "solving" this issue by trying harder, I would like to take the IETF to adopt the following approach:
So your fobia over all things NAT is so deep that you would insist on the use of a SOCKS-like mechanism, breaking end-to-end connectivity, to avoid implementing NAT of any sort. Pardon me for thinking this is a stretch.
2. for hosts that are connected to IPv6-only networks but with needs
Add more devices in the path, resulting in a tortured "end-2-end" that has lots of points of failure, and lots of state in the network for those tunnel endpoints, timeouts on same, etc.
I fail to see how your proposals preserve the end-to-end nature of the Internet in any meaningful way. You've gone a long way to find something, anything, that can take the place of NAT, but in so doing, you've proposed solutions which do not appreciably differ in effect on the function of the Internet.