[64720] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 NAT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eliot Lear)
Fri Oct 31 12:08:25 2003
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:01:40 -0800
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1067600620@[172.30.102.254]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> NAT is harmful to many protocols. Stateful
>> inspection is not.
>
>
> Possibly. But Joe User will never use those "many protocols". Plus the
> overwhelming majority of protocols are not harmed by NAT.
Of course NAT causes all sorts of damage to all sorts of protocols, as
the debate over VPN software demonstrated, nevermind voice applications
and peer to peer networking. It also has substantial implications for
mobility. This has all been well documented, as have workarounds.
Having yet another argument about this on nanog is a waste of bits (to
which I freely admit I'm contributing). Let me suggest we not bother
with the rest of the argument, but just have people search the archives.
Eliot
