Re: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

[Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:26 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: 
> On 12/6/10 6:27 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
> > You are enjoying a side-effect of NAT by thinking it
> > is a firewall.
> The other nice side-effect of NAT is that you get an effectively infinite number 
> of addresses behind it without any pre-arrangement with anyone else.  Even if 
> ISPs hand out what they expect to reasonably-sized blocks, won't it be much 
> harder to deal with when you outgrow your allotment?  We've had the opportunity 
> to move to ipv6 for ages but we haven't (in the US, anyway).  I think the reason 
> is that most people like the way NAT works and don't really want a public 
> address on every device.

Bogus.  The reason is that they haven't been pressured into adoption by
higher powers; so we will get into a nice scramble to migrate in a
pinch.

"most people" have no idea what NAT is, don't care, and shouldn't have
to care.

Some people's belief that NAT is some magic sauce that makes them more
secure [it does not] or provides them more flexibility [it does not]
than real addresses ... causes the people who understand networking to
have to spend time explaining that their love of NAT is misguided and
their beliefs about NAT are bogus.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos