Chris Engel wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "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." > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Correct, but what they DO understand is whether they are satisfied with the > services delivered to them or not...... whether their NEEDS are being > met......and whether the budget they pay for those services equals the VALUE > provided by them. no, they do not understand these things. they only naively believe that they understand these things. > At the end of the day.... is that not the proof of any given approach? no. > If you really believe that stuff you said about NAT, then you pretty much > don't need to be afraid of NAT in IPv6. If what you say happens to be true > then those of us who choose to deploy it will be placing ourselves and our > companies at a competitive disadvantage....and we'll either "see the light" > and adapt/convert.... or we'll go the way of the dinosaurs. that's only true if few enough people deploy NAT in IPv6. if NAT turns out to be rare, application developers who don't worry about it won't suffer much, and the nets that use NAT will be marginalized. OTOH, if NAT turns out to be common, applications developers will have to deal with it, resulting in increased costs and a higher bar for new apps - even for users of networks that don't use NAT. > Might the reality just happen to be that for a large portion of the community > NAT provides significantly more utility then any of these hypothetical new > apps that it is supposedly retarding? no. the utility for NAT in IPv6 is extremely marginal, and the effect of imposing NAT is huge. > I mean you DO realize that even in the IPv4 world there are organizations > that hold sufficient address space that they COULD assign every single device > a Public Address and they STILL choose to utilize private address space and > deploy NAT? That actually holds true for my company in one of it's > environments. there are very few such organizations. and the fact that a few of them choose to use NAT even though it is of no benefit to them should not be taken as evidence of wisdom on the part of those organizations.
I mean, it was once widely believed that cigarettes and large (by today's standards) doses of X-rays were beneficial to one's health. Just because many people today believe NAT is a good thing doesn't make it so. Keith
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
