[99666] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Tue Oct 2 08:05:45 2007
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c327bd0e699f@[192.168.3.65]>
Cc: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>,
"North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:50:57 +0200
To: John Curran <jcurran@mail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 2-okt-2007, at 11:36, John Curran wrote:
> The proxy&tunnel vs NAT-PT differences of opinion are entirely based
> on deployment model... proxy has the same drawbacks as NAT-PT,
The main issue with a proxy is that it's TCP-only. The main issue
with NAT-PT is that the applications don't know what going on. Rather
different drawbacks, I'd say.
> only without the attention to ALG's that NAT-PT will receive,
ALGs are not the solution. They turn the internet into a telco-like
network where you only get to deploy new applications when the powers
that be permit you to.
> and tunnelling is still going to require NAT in the deployment mode
> once
> IPv4 addresses are readily available.
Yes, but it's the IPv4 NAT we all know and love (to hate). So this
means all the ALGs you can think of already exist and we get to leave
that problem behind when we turn off IPv4. Also, not unimportant: it
allows IPv4-only applications to work trivially. Another advantage is
that hosts with different needs can get different classes of tunneled
IPv4 connectivity even though they happen to live on the same subnet,
something that's hard to do with native IPv4.
