Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ip

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:07:19PM +0200, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:

 > >IPv6 will happen.  Eventually.  And it'll have
deficiencies which
 > >some believe are "severe", just like the
IPv4 Internet.  Such as
 > >NAT.  Deal with it.
 > 
 > If you want NAT, please come up with a standards
document that  
 > describes how it works and how applications can work
around it. Just  
 > implementing it and letting the broken applications
fall where they  
 > may is so 1990s.

Ah, how obstructive of you.  "We can't possibly do this
until a 
multi-volume standards document has been written which
encompasses
and solves every conceivable problem with absolute
perfection.  Have
it on my desk by 5pm."

No, that's not how we do things on the Internet.  It _is_
how they
do things on those old-school telco networks you keep
telling us
to avoid emulating, but it's not our way.  Never has been,
likely
never will be (and, indeed, I'd put it to you that the
reason we're
all talking about IPv6 in 2007 instead of _using_ it is
because 
the IETF tried the old-school way instead of the Internet
way to
solve the running-out-of-addresses problem)

 > >If you believe that v4 exhaustion is a pressing
problem, then I'd
 > >humbly suggest that 2007 is a good time to shut
the hell up about
 > >how bad NAT is and get on with fixing the most
pressing problem.
 > 
 > "NAT is not a problem" and "running out
of IPv4 address space is a  
 > problem" can't both be true at the same time.
With enough NAT  
 > lubrication you can basically extend the IPv4 address
space by 16  
 > bits so you don't need IPv6.

Don't you think that's a bit of an oversimplification?  With

respect, Iljitsch, if you want a "long and bloody
argument" about
IPv6 NAT, and you engineer one by constructing straw men to
argue
against, my guess is that the blood on the walls at the end
of the
process will be yours.

 > >If we're successful, there'll be plenty of time to
go back and
 > >re-evaluate NAT afterwards when IPv6 exhaustion is
a distant memory.
 > 
 > Right. Building something that can't meet reasonable
requirements  
 > first and then getting rid of the holes worked so well
for the email  
 > spam problem.

My email works.  How about yours?

  - mark

-- 
Mark Newton                               Email:  newtoninternode.com.au (W)
Network Engineer                          Email:  newtonatdot.dotat.org  (H)
Internode Systems Pty Ltd                 Desk:  
+61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"
 Mobile: +61-416-202-223