> > From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > the problems that NAT causes, and that having suffcient address space > > (a.k.a. IPv6) solves > > This comment seems to posit that insufficient address space is the only thing > driving deployment of NATs (other than the modestly effective firewalls that > NAT provides), and that's just not correct. > > Until the IETF fully understands and appreciates the forces which are driving > the deployment of NAT boxes - which have been spectacularly successful in the > marketplace, far more so than the purported official alternative - they will > continue to eclipse said purported official alternative. * lack of address space * to avoid of renumbering (high perceived cost) * stateful firewall * having internal addresses that are meaningless on the outside Now IPv6 gives you the address space. We have lots of mechanisms now, if people were willing to deploy them, they ease the cost of renumbering. e.g. DHCP, stateless autoconf, DNS, secure DNS UPDATE, DNS DNAME, support for multiple prefixes at the lower levels. Yes, more work could be done to ease the costs of renumbering. Most of that however is vendor specific at this stage. We have stateful firewalls. We have IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses. The biggest problem is IPv4 mindset, with NAT being just one example of it. Mark > Noel > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf