nanog mailing list archives
Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
From: Carl Rosevear <crosevear () skytap com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:38:18 -0700
I'm not normally one to respond to NANOG messages with opinions.... but... Yeah, NAT broke the internet. Yes you can engineer around it. There is NO reason to hold onto NAT as a standard. With v6 we have the opportunity to do it right (or at least semi-right) from the beginning, lets not choose to break it all from the beginning. Don't worry, if you understand basic routing these concepts shouldn't be hard for you. And don't worry, there is still plenty of market for residential "firewalls" and all but yeah maybe they'll actually have to be a firewall/router as opposed to just a NAT box. So there is my opinion; I don't understand why anyone thinks NAT should be a fundamental part of the v6 internet even after reading almost every message in this thread. It is just a stop-gap v4 measure and yeah, before people understood real security it was a security thing. Lets just move ahead with the good stuff! There'll be plenty of legacy/nostalgia around for years for those who still want to work with it. Just an opinion, Carl
Current thread:
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?, (continued)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 27)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Matthew Kaufman (Apr 27)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Matthew Kaufman (Apr 27)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? John R. Levine (Apr 27)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Dave Israel (Apr 27)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Matthew Kaufman (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Carl Rosevear (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? David Conrad (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Felipe Zanchet Grazziotin (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? William Pitcock (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? David Conrad (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 29)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 28)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Paul Timmins (Apr 29)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? David Conrad (Apr 30)