Chris Engel wrote: > Excuse me if I find the claims of this vast "harm" ringing a little hollow. > Exactly who am I supposed to be "harming" by choosing to deploy NAT ??? > > - My end users and my company board have had zero complaints regarding it. In > fact, we generally get quite high marks for satisfaction with the services we > deliver from both those groups. So it can't be them. Wrong. End users and board members typically don't understand what NATs are, nor their effects on the network's ability to support applications. If they want to run an app that doesn't work on your network, they blame the app, even though the NATs in your network are what is screwing up the app.
Furthermore, end users and board members don't understand the degree to which the widespread deployment of NATs is artificially raising the cost of deploying new apps, and denying them useful new apps which might help employees in their work and help their company's competitiveness. Again, in IPv4, it's pretty much a moot point because address scarcity trumps everything else. But that's not the case for IPv6. > - Application Developers who need to put in extra work to make their > applications work with NAT?? Strange, I don't recall asking a single one of > them to do that, EVER. Did you ask for internet telephony to work? Multi-party conferencing? Network management? What you fail to realize is that NAT affects every single application currently used in the Internet. Many of them can continue to mostly work, with reduced reliability, logging the wrong IP addresses, and various other operational anomalies that users might not understand (and you might not understand either). But lots of apps get changed in one way or another to deal with NAT. > Now if THEY choose to do that, I'm sure that they are not going to eat those > costs but rather pass them along to me in the price of their product.... and > if their product is worth running, I am certainly going to be willing to pay > those costs. Since you're obviously in (deliberate) denial about those costs, it's clear you aren't in a position to estimate them. > They could also choose NOT to build support for NAT into their products.... and shrink their markets (at least in IPv4) to essentially zero. Yeah, that's a real successful business strategy. Keith
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
