[125945] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Tue Apr 27 13:51:18 2010
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:48:54 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
To: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100427173622.GA24745@chilli.nosignal.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: matthew@matthew.at
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Andy Davidson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:29:59AM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
>
>>> Did you use Yahoo IM, AIM, or Skype?
>>>
>> Yes, yes, and yes. Works fine.
>>
>
> What about every other service/protocol that users use today,
> and might be invented tomorrow ? Do & will they all work with
> NAT ?
>
Anyone inventing a new service/protocol that doesn't work with NAT isn't
planning on success.
> Do many others work as well or act reliably through NAT ?
>
Yes.
> Will it stop or hamper the innovation of new services on the
> internet ?
>
Hasn't so far.
> The answer to these questions isn't a good one for users, so
> as the community that are best placed to defend service quality
> and innovation by preserving the end to end principal, it is
> our responsibility to defend it to the best of our ability.
>
Firewalls will always break the end-to-end principle, whether or not
addresses are identical between the inside and outside or not.
> So get busy - v6 awareness, availability and abundancy are
> overdue for our end users.
>
Maybe. Most of them are perfectly happy.
Matthew Kaufman
