1 |
On 12/03/2013 01:31, Kevin Chadwick wrote: |
2 |
>>>> NAT behind a home router is bad, too. For IPv4, it's only necessary |
3 |
>>>> because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to let everyone have a unique |
4 |
>>>> one. |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> The best real reason for moving to IPV6 is address space (or lack |
7 |
>>> thereof, in the case of IPV4). The people who are truly interested in |
8 |
>>> speeding up IPV6 adoption should do their best to shut up the internet |
9 |
>>> hippies who constantly rant and rave about how "NAT is evil". Don't let |
10 |
>>> the cause get distracted by that unrelated issue. Focus on the core |
11 |
>>> issue. |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I completely agree divide and conquer tactics. |
15 |
> |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> You are being over-simplistic. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> Lack of IPv4 address space *caused* NAT to happen, the two are |
20 |
>> inextricably intertwined. Even worse, people now have NAT conflated with |
21 |
>> all sorts of other things. Like for example NAT and security. |
22 |
>> |
23 |
> |
24 |
> NAT was around way earlier and may I state again also that I have |
25 |
> externally facing servers and games machines behind NAT. |
26 |
|
27 |
I fail to see your point, and you have answered a question I did not ask. |
28 |
|
29 |
I too have that same circumstance, as likely does every one else here |
30 |
who works in networks for a living. So what? We have that because the |
31 |
environment gives us little choice. It doesn't make it good, bad, |
32 |
desirable or undesirable. it simply is and we have few realistic |
33 |
alternative choices. |
34 |
|
35 |
> |
36 |
> So are you saying that you think it is good for every machine to be in |
37 |
> a DMZ, few chosen ones yes. |
38 |
|
39 |
That's also a question I did not ask, and one I do not care to debate. |
40 |
|
41 |
>I disagree completely as I do with the |
42 |
> usefullness of push-email. |
43 |
> |
44 |
>> NAT is the context of an IPv6 discussion is *very* relevant, it's one of |
45 |
>> the points you have to raise to illustrate what bits inside people's |
46 |
>> heads needs to be identified and changed. |
47 |
>> |
48 |
>> Until you change the content of people's heads, IPv6 is just not going |
49 |
>> to happen. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> NAT has more uses than those two, NAT type of functionality is |
52 |
> apparently desired by some ipv6 networks to allow easier ISP |
53 |
> migration. |
54 |
|
55 |
You are going to have to back that up with some reasoned arguments. |
56 |
|
57 |
The only reason I can see why some might desire that is their reluctance |
58 |
to give up on old habits. happy to be shown to be wrong though. |
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
> |
62 |
> It's true NAT distracts from the bad points of ipv6 and which is the |
63 |
> only part irrelevent for ipv4 modded to work with a larger address space |
64 |
> (ipv5). |
65 |
> |
66 |
> I wonder if this is an example of how these technologies can get so |
67 |
> convoluted? |
68 |
|
69 |
McKinnon's Law of Human Implementation of Solutions: |
70 |
|
71 |
Any sufficiently large and representative group of humans when faced |
72 |
with making new choices to solve old problems, will always decide on the |
73 |
most complex convoluted solution that can be implemented soonest. |
74 |
|
75 |
Relevant? I dunno. But it sure sounds good. |
76 |
|
77 |
-- |
78 |
Alan McKinnon |
79 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |