[125630] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Tue Apr 20 15:20:32 2010
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4BCDF991.9010604@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:19:52 -0400
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@hopcount.ca
Cc: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2010-04-20, at 14:59, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/20/2010 10:29 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> Interesting how the artificial roadblocks to NAT66 are both delaying =
the
>> transition to IPv6 and increasing the demand for NAT in both =
protocols.
>> Nicely illustrates the risk when customer demand (for NAT) is =
ignored.
>=20
> This is really tiresome. IPv4 NAT existed commercially long before =
there was any effort at standardizing it.
Another way of looking at that would be that IPv4 NAT existed =
commercially despite massive resistance to the idea of standardising it. =
I think it is fair to say that standardisation would have saved many =
developers from a certain amount of pain and suffering.
It'd be nice to think that with v6 the pressures that caused v4 NAT to =
be a good idea no longer exist. v6 is being deployed into a world where =
it's normal to assume residential users have more than one device, for =
example.
However, in enterprise/campus environments I think the pressure for =
NAT66 is not because there are technical problems that NAT66 would =
solve, but rather because there's a generation of common wisdom that =
says that NAT is how you build enterprise/campus networks. This is =
unfortunate. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Joe
