[126040] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: the alleged evils of NAT,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Barak)
Wed Apr 28 18:17:30 2010
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
To: matthew@matthew.at,
Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100429065912.2f478885@opy.nosense.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--- On Wed, 4/28/10, Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not people are understanding or know the true reality.
> NAT broke the
> Internet's architecture, by turning IP from being a
> peer-to-peer
> protocol into a master/slave one (think mainframes and dumb
> terminals).
> Read RFC1958 if you don't understand what that means,
> specifically the
> 'end-to-end' principle part. IPv6's fundamental goal is to
> restore
> end-to-end.
And this, in a few short sentences, is why IPv6 adoption has been so incredibly slow and frustrating. For some of us, IPv6's primary benefit is solving the "32 bits aren't enough" problem. For others, the commercial Internet architecture which evolved is aesthetically offensive, and they see IPv6 as the corrective mechanism.
Only one of those two has any sort of time constraint (read: necessity), and it isn't the latter. The end-to-end principle is grand, I agree - but there are lots of commercial considerations which I find have a higher priority for my customers.
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.listentothefranchise.com
