nanog mailing list archives
Re: quietly....
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:35:46 -0600
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
Current thread:
- Re: quietly...., (continued)
- Re: quietly.... John Payne (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Brian Johnson (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Dave Israel (Feb 02)
- RE: quietly.... Brian Johnson (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Jon Lewis (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jay Ashworth (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Bates (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Lamar Owen (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Bates (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Lamar Owen (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Simon Perreault (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Matthew Palmer (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)