On 12/03/2013 01:31, Kevin Chadwick wrote: >>>> NAT behind a home router is bad, too. For IPv4, it's only necessary >>>> because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to let everyone have a unique >>>> one. >>> >>> The best real reason for moving to IPV6 is address space (or lack >>> thereof, in the case of IPV4). The people who are truly interested in >>> speeding up IPV6 adoption should do their best to shut up the internet >>> hippies who constantly rant and rave about how "NAT is evil". Don't let >>> the cause get distracted by that unrelated issue. Focus on the core >>> issue. >>> > > I completely agree divide and conquer tactics. > >> >> You are being over-simplistic. >> >> Lack of IPv4 address space *caused* NAT to happen, the two are >> inextricably intertwined. Even worse, people now have NAT conflated with >> all sorts of other things. Like for example NAT and security. >> > > NAT was around way earlier and may I state again also that I have > externally facing servers and games machines behind NAT.
I fail to see your point, and you have answered a question I did not ask. I too have that same circumstance, as likely does every one else here who works in networks for a living. So what? We have that because the environment gives us little choice. It doesn't make it good, bad, desirable or undesirable. it simply is and we have few realistic alternative choices. > > So are you saying that you think it is good for every machine to be in > a DMZ, few chosen ones yes. That's also a question I did not ask, and one I do not care to debate. >I disagree completely as I do with the > usefullness of push-email. > >> NAT is the context of an IPv6 discussion is *very* relevant, it's one of >> the points you have to raise to illustrate what bits inside people's >> heads needs to be identified and changed. >> >> Until you change the content of people's heads, IPv6 is just not going >> to happen. > > NAT has more uses than those two, NAT type of functionality is > apparently desired by some ipv6 networks to allow easier ISP > migration. You are going to have to back that up with some reasoned arguments. The only reason I can see why some might desire that is their reluctance to give up on old habits. happy to be shown to be wrong though. > > It's true NAT distracts from the bad points of ipv6 and which is the > only part irrelevent for ipv4 modded to work with a larger address space > (ipv5). > > I wonder if this is an example of how these technologies can get so > convoluted? McKinnon's Law of Human Implementation of Solutions: Any sufficiently large and representative group of humans when faced with making new choices to solve old problems, will always decide on the most complex convoluted solution that can be implemented soonest. Relevant? I dunno. But it sure sounds good. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
