quietly....

Jack Bates jbates at brightok.net
Thu Feb 3 12:35:46 CST 2011


On 2/3/2011 12:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 		Cost of application development

Applications do not have to be written to support NAT (NAT66 shouldn't 
find itself in the areas where it's traditionally been a problem). The 
burden should be upon the NAT device to fix any issues, and this will be 
paid for by the few that utilize NAT.

> 		Cost of devices

Cost of border firewalls you mean; also not an issue.

> 		Cost of administration

If I choose to use NAPTv6, it's right to accept this cost. It doesn't 
make someone else pay more for me to administer my firewall.

> 		Cost of operations

If I choose to use NAPTv6, it's right to accept this cost. It doesn't 
make someone else pay more for me to administer my firewall.


I understand and agree that CPEs should not use NAT66. It should even be 
a MUST NOT in the cpe router draft. However, there is no cost benefit of 
denying it to corporate border firewalls, and it most likely will be 
implemented anyways, so it should be properly documented.


Jack




More information about the NANOG mailing list