[154234] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jun 29 15:57:29 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAJEFqDe7AReq_MGOn92wZb5DOFQe-6nXn77W3aK_-SJJkgefpA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:36:57 -0400
To: Tyler Haske <tyler.haske@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Let it be known that I hate NAT with the burning passion of a million
> suns. But I'm the junior in my workplace, and this is the advice of
> the head honchos. I can easily see both sides of this. I would say
> with a few implementations, (maybe 25 or fewer) NATing isn't that
> difficult.
>=20
> Granted we both know that NAT breaks basically everything and makes
> troubleshooting a TON MORE FUN. But plenty of people out there (my
> workplace included) would argue this till the cows come home.
Yep... While this environment would benefit greatly from deploying IPv6 on b=
oth sides of the connection, the reality is that NAT is easy enough and work=
s well enough for the implementor that they will leave it's various pain poi=
nts for the people that have to deal with it after implementation and they w=
on't select IPv6 as a solution because it would involve slightly more pain u=
p front.
However, the networks on both sides of these equations will have to face IPv=
6 in the relatively near future anyway, unless they aren't actually talking t=
o the internet in which case, it doesn't really matter what addresses or pro=
tocols they use.
Owen
