The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring. All one has to do is apply for them from the RIR. Getting a service provider to route them is a different problem, especially when they profit from running your traffic through their NAT.
Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: philemon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:40 AM > To: Hannes Tschofenig; Keith Moore > Cc: Stephen Sprunk; ietf@ietf.org; Paul Hoffman > Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition > > Hi All > > > > Just an input about the NAT issue handled here. The 'war' against NAT > is > senseless before succeeding the one against IPv4. I mean, as far as the > v4 > protocol runs on our networks, NAT will remain as a useful tool for > those > who need it, of course for specific applications. In developing > countries > for example where IPv6 entry is very slow -add to a scarcity of IPv4 > addresses- we are always using NAT, and are happy to do so as: > > 1- No enough IPv4 addresses > > 2-No need for the specific applications for those networks > > 3-No alternative solution currently 'in the hands'. > > > > Thanks > > > > Philemon > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <ietf@ietf.org>; "Paul > Hoffman" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:11 PM > Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition > > > > Hi Keith, > > > > Keith Moore wrote: > >>> Most application protocols work just fine behind NAT. FTP works > with > >>> an ugly work-around. The main protocol that breaks down is SIP. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> there are a couple of problems with this analysis: > >> > >> one is that it considers only application protocols that are in > >> widespread use. there are lots of applications that are used by > limited > >> communities that are nevertheless important. > > > > Namely? > > > > > >> and of course, since NATs > >> are so pervasive, most of the applications that are in widespread > use > >> have been made to work with NAT (often at tremendous expense, and > >> reduced reliability). > >> > > Could you explain the tremendous expense a bit more? > > > > > >> another problem is that it only considers current applications. a > big > >> part of the problem with NAT is that it inhibits the > >> development/deployment of useful new applications. > >> > > > > As Phillip stated, I don't see the problem with future applications. > > Compare this with the security aspects that are taken care of much > more > > than before when developing new applications NAT traversal is just > another > > thing to think about as a protocol designer. > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > >> Keith > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ietf mailing list > >> Ietf@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
