"J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perry, I'm curious about the technical aspects of the problems you're seeing,
> in particular:
>
> Are the problems you are seeing due to i) the need for NAT boxes to grope
> around in packets, ii) the fact that hosts don't have permanent, globally
> visible internetwork-level 'names', or iii) something else (e.g. complex
> configuration management)?
All of the above.
i) hits all the time in that one is forced to tell people that some
new service or another isn't available because the various NATs and
proxies don't support it. That's actually not such a big problem,
though, in the sense that if you don't care about being able to use
the net in new ways it doesn't hurt.
ii) and iii) (complex configuration management) are the real issues.
> First, there is an alternative technology being proposed for local addresses
> in IPv4, RSIP, which should avoid i), but still leaves us with ii) and iii).
Having looked at things, RSIP appears to be as complicated as
deploying IPv6 with local NATs to connect to the v4 internet, since it
requires kernel hacks and border translators. v6 would have the
advantage that at least after some years of deploying the hellish
transitional technology the v6 bubbles would start to coalesce and
form a real internet again, i.e. the pain would eventually end. RSIP
would institutionalize the horror forever. For my money, I'd prefer
v6.
BTW, I fully agree with those who contend that v6 does not solve the
route agregation problems we have in v4. However, people don't seem to
get that the raw address space size problem v6 solves is in and of
itself reason enough to move to v6 given the costs we're having trying
to keep v4 on life support.
Perry
