hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
During the entire time since TCP over IPv4 started, the "default" expectation was that each workstation or server would be given its own public address. The same thing is also considered the default in IPv6, and the idea of NAT on IPv6 was not seriously considered is the fact that every network already has more public addresses than all of IPv4, thus there is no real need for NAT for address sharing.
The problem is that No NAT for IPv6 is religious dogma, regardless of the reason anyone may have for wanting it, which may have nothing at all to do with address sharing. Even fixing multihoming and readdressing (to the extent it may be possible) will not eliminate any and all motivations for NAT. Its time to standardize NAT and move on.
Now imagine if all those CGNAT boxes are also doing a workable version of NAT-PT. Deploying customers with any IPv4 becomes optional.
Joe _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
