[30926] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 allocatin (was Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David R. Conrad)
Fri Sep 1 17:02:21 2000
Message-ID: <39B016B2.A2057570@nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 13:50:58 -0700
From: "David R. Conrad" <David.Conrad@nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>> When IPv6 offers something end users or ISPs value over IPv4+NAT.
> Hah, interesting thought! :-) Perhaps we should push for people to
> use the IPv4+NAT kludge,
A very large number of folks are using IPv4+NAT now, mostly without
complaint (or even awareness). I use it myself quite frequently. In a
limited (albeit typical) mode of communication, NAT works just fine.
IPv6, on the other hand, does NOT work for the vast majority of people
on the Internet.
> Two seperately NAT'ed hosts don't communicate enough today for
> more than a "priviledge few" to discover all the issues with it.
You are expecting people who have been trained to expect to have to
reboot periodically and/or reinstall entire operating systems when they
have problems to get annoyed when they have difficulties trying to
communicate to a remote site because of NAT? If/when folks run into
difficulties due to NAT, I suspect they'll just shrug their shoulders,
mumble something about broken web sites, and fine another
porn^H^H^H^Hcontent site that works.
Rgds,
-drc
