[125956] 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 14:51:54 2010
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:49:26 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <63667EAD-622B-4A21-A794-6DBFCE091079@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: matthew@matthew.at
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Respectfully, I disagree. There are many possible innovations that are available in a NAT-less world and it is desirable to get to that point rather than hamper future innovation with this obsolete baggage.
>
I would argue that every one of those innovations, if even passably
useful, can also be implemented in a NAT-full world.
>
>>> Do many others work as well or act reliably through NAT ?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> In reality, it's more like some yes, some not so much.
>
== Some designed to work properly in the face of NAT, some ignored
reality at their peril.
>
>>> Will it stop or hamper the innovation of new services on the
>>> internet ?
>>>
>>>
>> Hasn't so far.
>>
>
> Here I have to call BS... I know of a number of cases where it has.
>
Ok, you called it... so where's the list of such services that haven't
materialized as a result of NAT?
Matthew Kaufman
