Re: A modest proposal for Harald

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:36:08PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:


Even if we ignore the address space issues entirely, we will
slide smoothly from "NATs in IPv4" to "NATs in IPv6" or, more
likely, "ever more clever NATs and NAT technologies in IPv4"
unless we are successful in nailing down the mechanisms to
accomplish the sorts of configuration and goals in IPv6 that are
causing NATs in IPv4.  My sense is that we haven't done that
yet.  We may even be a bit behind where we thought we were 18
months ago.


The real sad thing is that many people operating enterprise or
even university networks get so used to NATs that they can't imagine to live without them anymore. They feel kind of naked
without a NAT and they will likely insist on NATs when you get
them to deploy IPv6. Fixing a mis-guided public opinion is
close to impossible.

Some of us are trying: draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt

   Brian

(Still, IPv6 is worth all the efforts
for those who understand the pains and prefer lots of cheap
global addresses. ;-)

/js


_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]