RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

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

 



The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring. All one has to do is apply for them from the RIR. Getting a service provider to route them is a different problem, especially when they profit from running your traffic through their NAT.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: philemon [mailto:philemon@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:40 AM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig; Keith Moore
> Cc: Stephen Sprunk; ietf@xxxxxxxx; Paul Hoffman
> Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
>
> Hi All
>
>
>
> Just an input about the NAT issue handled here. The 'war' against NAT
> is
> senseless before succeeding the one against IPv4. I mean, as far as the
> v4
> protocol runs on our networks, NAT will remain as a useful tool for
> those
> who need it, of course for specific applications. In developing
> countries
> for example where IPv6 entry is very slow -add to a scarcity of IPv4
> addresses- we are always using NAT, and are happy to do so as:
>
> 1- No enough IPv4 addresses
>
> 2-No need for the specific applications for those networks
>
> 3-No alternative solution currently 'in the hands'.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Philemon
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Keith Moore" <moore@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@xxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; "Paul
> Hoffman"
> <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:11 PM
> Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
>
>
> > Hi Keith,
> >
> > Keith Moore wrote:
> >>> Most application protocols work just fine behind NAT. FTP works
> with
> >>> an ugly work-around. The main protocol that breaks down is SIP.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> there are a couple of problems with this analysis:
> >>
> >> one is that it considers only application protocols that are in
> >> widespread use.  there are lots of applications that are used by
> limited
> >> communities that are nevertheless important.
> >
> > Namely?
> >
> >
> >>   and of course, since NATs
> >> are so pervasive, most of the applications that are in widespread
> use
> >> have been made to work with NAT (often at tremendous expense, and
> >> reduced reliability).
> >>
> > Could you explain the tremendous expense a bit more?
> >
> >
> >> another problem is that it only considers current applications.  a
> big
> >> part of the problem with NAT is that it inhibits the
> >> development/deployment of useful new applications.
> >>
> >
> > As Phillip stated, I don't see the problem with future applications.
> > Compare this with the security aspects that are taken care of much
> more
> > than before when developing new applications NAT traversal is just
> another
> > thing to think about as a protocol designer.
> >
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
> >
> >> Keith
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ietf mailing list
> >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

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]