[126034] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: the alleged evils of NAT,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Carl Rosevear)
Wed Apr 28 17:39:01 2010
From: Carl Rosevear <crosevear@skytap.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100429065912.2f478885@opy.nosense.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:38:18 -0700
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I'm not normally one to respond to NANOG messages with opinions.... =
but...
Yeah, NAT broke the internet. Yes you can engineer around it. There is =
NO reason to hold onto NAT as a standard. With v6 we have the =
opportunity to do it right (or at least semi-right) from the beginning, =
lets not choose to break it all from the beginning. =20
Don't worry, if you understand basic routing these concepts shouldn't be =
hard for you.
And don't worry, there is still plenty of market for residential =
"firewalls" and all but yeah maybe they'll actually have to be a =
firewall/router as opposed to just a NAT box.
So there is my opinion; I don't understand why anyone thinks NAT should =
be a fundamental part of the v6 internet even after reading almost every =
message in this thread. It is just a stop-gap v4 measure and yeah, =
before people understood real security it was a security thing. Lets =
just move ahead with the good stuff! There'll be plenty of =
legacy/nostalgia around for years for those who still want to work with =
it.
Just an opinion,
Carl
