Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Sun Mar 27 01:02:26 UTC 2022

On Mar 26, 2022, at 8:30 PM, Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> 
>> It still looks like NAT to me.
> 
> Almost all the people, perhaps other than you, accept NAT
> as is to keep IPv4 Internet or as part of transition
> plan from IPv4 to IPv6.
> 
>> NAT is a disgusting hack and destroys the universal peer to peer
>> nature of the internet in favor of a consumer/provider model.
> 
> As I repeatedly pointed out, end to end NAT is clean preserving
> the universal peer to peer nature of the Internet.
> 
> 	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00
> 
> The basic idea is to let NAT boxes perform address translations
> only without adjusting check sums or translating ports and
> to let end systems perform reverse address translations,
> which restores correct check sums, and port number
> restrictions.
> 
> 						Masataka Ohta

I have yet to find an economical way to manage a business merger involving two large rfc1918 networks where end to end peering is required and which partially or fully overlap. Ignoring short-sighted financial management views, the best long term solution is globally unique IPv6 addressing wherever possible. Local islands of IPv4 gatewayed or NATted with local management continue to be possible.