[125949] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: the alleged evils of NAT,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Apr 27 14:16:45 2010
To: matthew@matthew.at
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:48:54 PDT."
<4BD72386.6010303@matthew.at>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:15:39 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1272392139_4032P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:48:54 PDT, Matthew Kaufman said:
> Anyone inventing a new service/protocol that doesn't work with NAT isn't
> planning on success.
Only true in the IPv4 world. IPv6 will hopefully be different.
> > 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.
The difference is that if a protocol wants to be end-to-end, I can fix a
firewall to not break it. You don't have that option with a NAT.
> > So get busy - v6 awareness, availability and abundancy are
> > overdue for our end users.
> >
> Maybe. Most of them are perfectly happy.
Most of the US population was perfectly happy just before the recent
financial crisis hit. Ignorance is bliss - but only for a little while.
--==_Exmh_1272392139_4032P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFL1ynLcC3lWbTT17ARAgxrAJ9bGK3a7bQDy3BK1GZD04FDu/kKcgCg8tmq
8607/KBz1BP1wiaQn/CTpRg=
=odA6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1272392139_4032P--
