the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Tue Apr 27 18:49:26 UTC 2010

Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>   
>> Andy Davidson wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:29:59AM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>> Did you use Yahoo IM, AIM, or Skype?
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>> Yes, yes, and yes.  Works fine.
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> What about every other service/protocol that users use today, and might be invented tomorrow ?  Do & will they all work with NAT ?
>>>  
>>>       
>> Anyone inventing a new service/protocol that doesn't work with NAT isn't planning on success.
>>     
>
> Respectfully, I disagree.  There are many possible innovations that are available in a NAT-less world and it is desirable to get to that point rather than hamper future innovation with this obsolete baggage.
>   
I would argue that every one of those innovations, if even passably 
useful, can also be implemented in a NAT-full world.
>   
>>> Do many others work as well or act reliably through NAT ?
>>>  
>>>       
>> Yes.
>>     
>
> In reality, it's more like some yes, some not so much.
>   
== Some designed to work properly in the face of NAT, some ignored 
reality at their peril.
>   
>>> Will it stop or hamper the innovation of new services on the
>>> internet ?
>>>  
>>>       
>> Hasn't so far.
>>     
>
> Here I have to call BS... I know of a number of cases where it has.
>   
Ok, you called it... so where's the list of such services that haven't 
materialized as a result of NAT?

Matthew Kaufman