Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

Tue Nov 9 23:00:04 UTC 2004

In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:46:49PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> However, there is plenty of address space in IPv6 to go NATless, so 
> protocol desingers and implementers are unlikey to add NAT workarounds 
> for IPv6. This means it's very unlikely that applications that don't 
> use simple client/server communication are going to work with NAT in 
> IPv6.

As long as IPv4 exists, which I predict will be a long time, the
"protocol designers" which are really application developers for
your purposes, will write to the lowest common denominator.  API's
for all the major platforms already look like this; you open a TCP
socket to an end address, be it IPv4 or IPv6 in a dual stack machine.

So with the protocols still designed to work over IPv4 NAT, and the
complexity of IPv6 NAT being roughly "s/long/long long/g" (yes,
simplified, but you get my point) and recompiling your NAT code,
I'm not sure what will be the barrier to IPv6 NAT.

I would love to see a solid technical reason why IPv6 NAT will NOT work.
In the absense of that I will stick to my guns and say that it will
work and be available, and most likely sooner rather than later.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041109/3fca1dbc/attachment.sig>