[99731] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Wed Oct 3 05:55:21 2007
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:30:40 -1000
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Mark Newton <newton@internode.com.au>
CC: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, John Curran <jcurran@mail.com>,
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>,
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20071003073343.GN58829@internode.com.au>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>> - If we do NAT-PT and the ALGs are implemented and then the
>> application workarounds around the ALGs, it's only a very small
>> step to wide scale IPv6 NAT.
> Perhaps it's a perspective issue, but I really don't see a problem
> with that. If the network works, who cares?
well, the thing is that nats in the middle really do cause problems. and
we do care about those problems.
it's just that inability to have a usable transition toward the
wonderfully incompatible ipv6 protocol is a far worse problem.
so, as this is engineering, not religion, we will make the trade-off and
put up with the mostly hackable problems of nat-pt rather than the much
more serious problems living with ipv4 only and a jillion nats for ever
and ever.
some of the older of us may be more used to such lesser of two evil
compromises. heck, i voted for hubert the whore.
randy
