On 1-okt-2007, at 19:56, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The problem with NAT-PT (translating between IPv6 and IPv4
similar to IPv4 NAT) was that it basically introduces all the NAT
ugliness that we know in IPv4 into the IPv6 world.
There is no IPv6 world. I've heard reference over and over to
how
What has happened? Well, application protocols have evolved to
accommodate NAT weirdness (e.g., SIP NAT discovery), and NATs have
undergone incremental improvements, and almost no end-users care about
NATs. As long as they can use the Google, BitTorrent and Skype, most
moms and dads
At 10:43 AM +0200 10/2/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
When v4-only users get sick of going through a NAT-PT because it breaks a few
things, that will be their motivation to get real IPv6 connectivity and turn
the NAT-PT box off -- or switch it around so they can be a v6-only site
internally.
At 5:36 AM -0400 10/2/07, John Curran wrote:
...
tunnelling is still going to require NAT in the deployment mode once
IPv4 addresses are readily available.
c/are/are no longer/
(before my morning caffeine fix)
/John
On 2-okt-2007, at 11:36, John Curran wrote:
The proxytunnel vs NAT-PT differences of opinion are entirely based
on deployment model... proxy has the same drawbacks as NAT-PT,
The main issue with a proxy is that it's TCP-only. The main issue
with NAT-PT is that the applications don't know
At 1:50 PM +0200 10/2/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
ALGs are not the solution. They turn the internet into a telco-like network
where you only get to deploy new applications when the powers that be permit
you to.
At the point in time that NAT-PR is used for backward
compatibility (because
On 2-okt-2007, at 14:08, John Curran wrote:
That's a wonderful solution, and you should feel free to use it.
It's particularly fun from a support perspective, because you
get to be involved all the way down the host level.
Tunneling IPv4 over IPv6 and translating IPv4 into IPv6 pretty much
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Yes, but it's the IPv4 NAT we all know and love (to hate). So this
means all the ALGs you can think of already exist and we get to leave
that problem behind when we turn off IPv4. Also, not unimportant: it
allows IPv4-only applications
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Please explain how you plan on getting rid of those protocol-aware
plugins
when IPv6 is widely deployed in environments with -stateful
firewalls-.
You just open up a hole in the firewall where appropriate.
You can have an ALG, the application
On Oct 1, 2007, at 9:15 AM, John Curran wrote:
What happens if folks can somehow obtain IPv4 address blocks
but the cumulative route load from all of these non-hierarchical
blocks prevents ISP's from routing them?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) writes:
Presumably, the folks with the
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1-okt-2007, at 19:56, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
There is no IPv6 world. I've heard reference over and over to how
developers shouldn't add NAT support into v6 apps, but
the reality is that there are no v6 apps. There are IPv4 apps
and IP
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Please explain how you plan on getting rid of those protocol-
aware plugins when IPv6 is widely deployed in environments
with -stateful firewalls-.
You just open up a hole in the firewall where
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:35:11PM +1300, Perry Lorier wrote:
What has happened? Well, application protocols have evolved to
accommodate NAT weirdness (e.g., SIP NAT discovery), and NATs have
undergone incremental improvements, and almost no end-users care about
NATs. As long as
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:50:57PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
ALGs are not the solution. They turn the internet into a telco-like
network where you only get to deploy new applications when the powers
that be permit you to.
No, they turn the Intenret into a network where you
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:57:15PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
On Oct 1, 2007, at 9:15 AM, John Curran wrote:
What happens if folks can somehow obtain IPv4 address blocks
but the cumulative route load from all of these non-hierarchical
blocks prevents ISP's from routing them?
[EMAIL
On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think anyone will be deploying v6 without a stateful firewall,
you're
delusional. That battle is long over. The best we can hope for is that
those personal firewalls won't do NAT as well.
Vendor C claims to support v6 (without
Thus spake Duane Waddle
On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think anyone will be deploying v6 without a stateful firewall,
you're delusional. That battle is long over. The best we can hope
for is that those personal firewalls won't do NAT as well.
Vendor C claims to
Thus spake William Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of
offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily
be made to offer:
1. More addresses.
2. Provider independent addresses
At the customer level, #1 has been
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2-okt-2007, at 11:36, John Curran wrote:
The proxytunnel vs NAT-PT differences of opinion are entirely
based on deployment model... proxy has the same drawbacks
as NAT-PT,
The main issue with a proxy is that it's TCP-only. The main issue
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake William Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As far as I can tell, IPv6 is at least theoretically capable of
offering exactly two things that IPv4 does not offer and can't easily
be made to offer:
1. More addresses.
2. Provider independent addresses
At the customer
On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently well, please
take that argument to PPML. As of today, if you qualify for PIv4 space, you
qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and you only have to pay the fees
for one of them.
i had a totally different picture in my head, which was of a rolling
outage of routers unable to cope with full routing in the face of
this kind of unaggregated/nonhierarchical table
been there done that
followed by a surge of bankruptcies and mergers and buyouts
and that is not what
Thus spake Seth Mattinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently well,
please take that argument to PPML. As of today, if you qualify
for PIv4 space, you qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and
you only have to pay the fees for
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I don't know the status of the v6 initial assignment fee; I think that the v6
initial allocation fee was waived at one point. If they're not waived now,
that'd be a one-time cost of $1250.
I'm pretty sure it's still being waived (at least for
and that is not what happened last time, so why should it happen
this time?
In fact, it's reasonable to assume that we will again filter
prefixes.
i agree but fear that it will be harder to find the filter algorithms
this time.
Hopefully, the ISP that is forced into this position will
End-to-end-ness is and has been busted in the corporate world AFAICT
for a number of years. IPv6 people seem to think that simply
providing
globally unique addressing to all endpoints will remove NAT and all
associated trouble. Guess what - it probably won't.
If you don't want
From: David Conrad:
snip
: Older routers will indeed fall over, as they are going to
: fall over when we go over 240K routes, so folks will upgrade.
I see we're pretty close to that: www.cidr-report.org/as2.0
Date Prefixes
03-10-07 239049
scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) writes:
... You cannot simply wave a magic wand and say there shall be no NAT. ...
actually, you can. see RFC 4966. don't be fooled by the title, it's not just
damning NAT-PT, since it justifies doing so by stating that NAT is damned.
(of course, waving a
28 matches
Mail list logo
