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

RE: why market picked up NATs [Re: Write-ups on why RFC1918 is bad?]



Erik,

> Erik Nordmark wrote:
> It isn't clear to me at what point the pain caused by NAT in
> different cases will be high enough to motivate a transition
> to some different technology, or whether there must be new
> capabilities (such as the ability to have multiple servers
> at the same port number in a home) that are perceived
> important enough to cause migration away from NAT solutions.

I don't think that the ability to have multiple servers on the same port
is significant enough to trigger a migration; there would need to be a
more significant change. Bottom line is that on my single IP at home, I
host all the services I want, use H.323, peer-to-peer apps, and whatever
else I please and yes it does work.

The annoyance at this point in time is manual configuration to make it
work, but with things such as UPNP and STUN it gets easier and easier.
If we were in a world where we did not need stateful firewalls, NAT
would be a lot more of a hassle than it is today; unfortunately dealing
with a stateful firewall with or without NAT is about the same amount of
work, so NAT is here to stay.

I have to say that given the recent trends and developments, I am now on
the fence WRT joining the camp that says that NAT is unavoidable for v6
so we might as well make it work. I have not made my mind yet but if
things continue the way they are now you will likely find me developing
a NATv6 box this time next year.


Michel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------