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: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Wed Oct 03 03:35:16 2007

On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote:

By focussing on the mechanics of inbound NAT traversal, you're
ignoring the fact that applications work regardless.  Web, VoIP,
P2P utilities, games, IM, Google Earth, you name it, it works.

O really? When was the last time you successfully transferred a file using IM? It only works half the time for me and I don't even use NAT on my main system myself. Some audio/video chat applications work well, others decidedly less so. The only reason most stuff works most of the time is because applications tell NAT devices to open up incoming ports using uPnP or NAT-PMP.

IPv6 will happen.  Eventually.  And it'll have deficiencies which
some believe are "severe", just like the IPv4 Internet.  Such as
NAT.  Deal with it.

If you want NAT, please come up with a standards document that describes how it works and how applications can work around it. Just implementing it and letting the broken applications fall where they may is so 1990s.

If you believe that v4 exhaustion is a pressing problem, then I'd
humbly suggest that 2007 is a good time to shut the hell up about
how bad NAT is and get on with fixing the most pressing problem.

"NAT is not a problem" and "running out of IPv4 address space is a problem" can't both be true at the same time. With enough NAT lubrication you can basically extend the IPv4 address space by 16 bits so you don't need IPv6.

If we're successful, there'll be plenty of time to go back and
re-evaluate NAT afterwards when IPv6 exhaustion is a distant memory.

Right. Building something that can't meet reasonable requirements first and then getting rid of the holes worked so well for the email spam problem.