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

Re: why market picked up NATs [Re: Writeups on why RFC1918 is bad?]

On woensdag, sep 24, 2003, at 13:31 Europe/Amsterdam, Thomas Narten 

> It's even worse than that. If you are residential user, try finding a
> home router that is actually a Real Router. I've come to the
> unfortunate conclusion that they no longer exist.  The market
> landscape has shifted dramatically. All home routers come with NAT
> builtin and the functionality can simply _NOT_ be disabled.

Is this surprising if you only want to pay $40? I don't think the 
landscape has shifted, because people never used to have routers of any 
kind in their homes.

I spent 500 euros on a Cisco 826 ADSL router (yes, original meaning of 
the word although I must admit I have it do NAT) and an Apple base 
station, and it's well worth the additional money to have a router that 
actually does what I want (which includes forwarding IP unmolested) and 
a base station that sits transparently between the wired and wireless 
LANs. And this combo supports IPv6 the way it was intended. (But the 
router terminates a tunnel, I didn't want to spend more money on DSL 
service that supports native v6 although that's of course much cooler.)

> Given the current feature/functionaliy/price point reality of home
> routers, getting them to implement reasonable functionality as an IPv6
> router seems like it will be a rather hard sell. :-(

For stuff like this all costs except shipping and support eventually 
approach zero when the numbers get bit enough. Putting in an IPv6 stack 
that takes an automatically configured IPv4 address and sets up 6to4 
would take some development, but that's well worth it if you can sell a 
few million additional boxes because these boxes allow more than a 
single computer in a household to do peer to peer file sharing.

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