Re: IPv6 NAT?

[Dan York <dyork@xxxxxxxxx>]

Remi,

On Feb 15, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Rémi Després wrote:

Dan York wrote :

I.e., either we assume no NAT in IPv6, or create a NAT standard. Those  

are the only sane options.

Just to be clear, that particular text was written by Iljitsch van Beijnum, although I agree with him on it.

Somehow it can be both, but NOT at the same time :

In the IPv6-only world, to be reached at the end of the transition period, NATs should IMO be prohibited.

I think we will have to respectfully disagree on this one.  Count me in the camp that says that NAT will *NEVER* go away as long as corporate enterprises believe it is of value to them (as I noted in my previous message).  Even were we to somehow "prohibit" it, enterprises would still do it... or our stance on prohibiting it would simply be yet another barrier for them to seriously consider moving to IPv6.

NAT is here. NAT is loved (by many). NAT will be with us until long after we are all long gone.

The question is whether we standardize how NAT is done with IPv6 or whether we just let the vendors go wild with it as they did for IPv4.

My 2 cents,

Dan

-- 

Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology

Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     dyork@xxxxxxxxx

Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com

Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.

Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf