> From: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> But these limitations don't inherently apply to NAT between v4 and v6,
> particularly not when the v4 address is a public one.
I don't understand this; I thought the inherent problems you so ably and
clearly laid out in your other message (e.g. the inability to allow incoming
connections based on incoming application packets only; the inability to pass
an address to a third party; the increased fragility due to state in the
network) would apply to an IPv4-IPv6 NAT, when such a device is used to allow
a group of hosts with only IPv6 addresses to communicate with IPv4-only
machines. What am I missing?
> there's a whole other discussion to be had about how the IPv6 feature
> set was chosen - e.g. why concerns like WAN routing scalability trumped
> other very valid concerns
Without scalable routing, you don't have a network anyway, right? So if other
_additional_ properties were 'required', the architecture needed to be
extended to support them (bearing in mind the old TANSTAAFL principle).
Ironically, by reusing the single-namespace IPv4 architecture without
modification (touted at the time as a 'feature' of IPv6), it made it
impossible to have a network which was both practicable (i.e. scalable
routing) and met user desires, e.g. for provider independence - which is,
in a further irony, one of the rhings driving the NATs you so dislike.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf