| 1 |
> >> NAT behind a home router is bad, too. For IPv4, it's only necessary |
| 2 |
> >> because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to let everyone have a unique |
| 3 |
> >> one. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > The best real reason for moving to IPV6 is address space (or lack |
| 6 |
> > thereof, in the case of IPV4). The people who are truly interested in |
| 7 |
> > speeding up IPV6 adoption should do their best to shut up the internet |
| 8 |
> > hippies who constantly rant and rave about how "NAT is evil". Don't let |
| 9 |
> > the cause get distracted by that unrelated issue. Focus on the core |
| 10 |
> > issue. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I completely agree divide and conquer tactics. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> You are being over-simplistic. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Lack of IPv4 address space *caused* NAT to happen, the two are |
| 19 |
> inextricably intertwined. Even worse, people now have NAT conflated with |
| 20 |
> all sorts of other things. Like for example NAT and security. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
NAT was around way earlier and may I state again also that I have |
| 24 |
externally facing servers and games machines behind NAT. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So are you saying that you think it is good for every machine to be in |
| 27 |
a DMZ, few chosen ones yes. I disagree completely as I do with the |
| 28 |
usefullness of push-email. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> NAT is the context of an IPv6 discussion is *very* relevant, it's one of |
| 31 |
> the points you have to raise to illustrate what bits inside people's |
| 32 |
> heads needs to be identified and changed. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Until you change the content of people's heads, IPv6 is just not going |
| 35 |
> to happen. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
NAT has more uses than those two, NAT type of functionality is |
| 38 |
apparently desired by some ipv6 networks to allow easier ISP |
| 39 |
migration. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
It's true NAT distracts from the bad points of ipv6 and which is the |
| 42 |
only part irrelevent for ipv4 modded to work with a larger address space |
| 43 |
(ipv5). |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I wonder if this is an example of how these technologies can get so |
| 46 |
convoluted? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
_______________________________________________________________________ |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work |
| 52 |
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a |
| 53 |
universal interface' |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
(Doug McIlroy) |
| 56 |
_______________________________________________________________________ |
Archives