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

On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:37:22AM +0200, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:

 > The crucial difference is that there is an upgrade
path. There is no  
 > upgrade path from a network with NAT to a network
where you don't  
 > have to work around NAT. That's why it's so important
to keep the NAT  
 > in IPv4 and not let it sneak into IPv6.

Most of us debating this with you _don't care_ if NAT
happens to exist
on the IPv6 Internet.  It's on the IPv4 Internet and we
still manage
to use the network for the things we want to use it for, so
we're
mounting an empirical case to say that portrayal of NAT that
you're
presenting is false.

Basically, your argument boils down to aesthetics.  You
don't like 
NAT.  You want it to go away.  Fine, I don't like it either
and I 
wouldn't mind if it went away...

But funnily enough, I can remember having exactly these
same
arguments with people about IPv4 NAT. And y'know what?  They

didn't make a lick of difference, because NAT could be (and
was)
deployed unilaterally, without any semblance of global
coordination.

{Your|My} aesthetic sense isn't actually in charge here. 
Moan about
it all you want, but it's _inevitable_ that every tool in
the toolbox,
including NAT-PT, will be used to smooth-over IPv6 adoption
challenges. 
And if you don't like it, you're just gonna have to cope.  

Your alternatives are:

  - NAT-PT with well-understood standards and operational
guidelines
    aimed at maximizing interoperability;  and

  - NAT-PT without well-understood standards and operational
guidelines,
    where interoperability is a flukish crapshoot, where
random stuff
    just fails to work because there are no agreed-upon ways
to use
    application awareness at layer-4 to work around
breakage.

In that universe, where you have to pick one, which one
would 
you rather see in widespread deployment?  And if it's the
first
alternative, what kind of results do you think you'll get by
opposing
efforts to develop standards for NAT?

  - mark
    [ wondering how long it'll be before I'll be able to buy
a CEF-
      accelerated TCAM-equipped layer-4 switching blade for
a 7600  ]


-- 
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

On Oct 4, 2007, at 4:56 AM, Mark Newton wrote:

>
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:37:22AM +0200, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:
>
>> The crucial difference is that there is an upgrade
path. There is no
>> upgrade path from a network with NAT to a network
where you don't
>> have to work around NAT. That's why it's so
important to keep the NAT
>> in IPv4 and not let it sneak into IPv6.
>
> Most of us debating this with you _don't care_ if NAT
happens to exist
> on the IPv6 Internet.  It's on the IPv4 Internet and we
still manage
> to use the network for the things we want to use it
for, so we're
> mounting an empirical case to say that portrayal of NAT
that you're
> presenting is false.

Plus, it may give you a legal defense !

In this trial

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-testi
mony-.html

her defense basically boil down to, because my home network
was  
NATed, who knows who
was using that IP address ?

Regards (with tongue firmly in cheek)
Marshall

>
> Basically, your argument boils down to aesthetics.  You
don't like
> NAT.  You want it to go away.  Fine, I don't like it
either and I
> wouldn't mind if it went away...
>
> But funnily enough, I can remember having exactly these
same
> arguments with people about IPv4 NAT. And y'know what? 
They
> didn't make a lick of difference, because NAT could be
(and was)
> deployed unilaterally, without any semblance of global
coordination.
>
> {Your|My} aesthetic sense isn't actually in charge
here.  Moan about
> it all you want, but it's _inevitable_ that every tool
in the toolbox,
> including NAT-PT, will be used to smooth-over IPv6
adoption  
> challenges.
> And if you don't like it, you're just gonna have to
cope.
>
> Your alternatives are:
>
>   - NAT-PT with well-understood standards and
operational guidelines
>     aimed at maximizing interoperability;  and
>
>   - NAT-PT without well-understood standards and
operational  
> guidelines,
>     where interoperability is a flukish crapshoot,
where random stuff
>     just fails to work because there are no agreed-upon
ways to use
>     application awareness at layer-4 to work around
breakage.
>
> In that universe, where you have to pick one, which one
would
> you rather see in widespread deployment?  And if it's
the first
> alternative, what kind of results do you think you'll
get by opposing
> efforts to develop standards for NAT?
>
>   - mark
>     [ wondering how long it'll be before I'll be able
to buy a CEF-
>       accelerated TCAM-equipped layer-4 switching blade
for a  
> 7600  ]
>
>
> -- 
> 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