[120231] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Auer)
Sat Dec 12 06:30:28 2009
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20091212054515.DF5792B2161@mx5.roble.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:29:43 +1100
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--=-N76DmRNwWdQ1+SvczwXJ
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 21:45 -0800, Roger Marquis wrote:
> If you're going to implement
> statefulness there is no technical downside to implementing NAT as well.
> No downside, plenty of upsides, no brainer...
Of course there are downsides to implementing NAT - adding any feature
to a device increases its complexity and affects its expense, time to
market, MTBF etc. And there is certainly a downside to *deploying* NAT:
NAT removes end-to-end transparency.
Gotta keep those SOHO users in their cages, don't want them becoming
independent producers of digital value, no sir!
Seriously - by all means keep NAT as a technology for those who want to
deploy it; we can't uninvent it anyway. It just shouldn't be imposed on
others.
I would argue that an ISP requiring of a customer that they use a NATted
solution with IPv6 *is* imposing it on others.
Regards, K.
--=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob)
GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
--=-N76DmRNwWdQ1+SvczwXJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAksjfqAACgkQSkRqA/Q6fe8w6QCcD47hf26Nczkm2lvoja53q/R0
zNIAoIDWw0HinZd7VH/QYVhY6bc0qfQK
=PE1l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-N76DmRNwWdQ1+SvczwXJ--
