Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

[J. Noel Chiappa]

    > right, noels wrong.

Noel is happy to wait, and see who's right. (I've been through this exact
same experience before, with CLNP, so I understand the life-cycle.) So far,
I've been waiting for quite a few years with IPv6, and so far I'm right.

Let's see, how many years have these standards been out, and how much
deployment has there been? Hmm, RFC-1883 was in December 1995. Can you point
me to *any* other IETF product that, 5 years after the Proposed Standard came
out, still hadn't been significantly deployed - and then went on to be a
success?

No?

I didn't think so.


    > NATs are not only bad e2e karma, they are bad tech

I'm not denying that - and I've said as much. All address-sharing devices are
problematic, and some (e.g. NAT boxes) are downright disgusting kludges.

However, history shows that bad tech doesn't magically replace itself, it has
to be replaced by an economically viable alternative. (For an example of this
principle in action, note that the vast majority of cars are still powered by
reciprocating internal-combustion engines... talk about poor basic concept!
But I digress....)

Judging from the real world out there, it appears that IPv6 isn't a viable
alternative.

        Noel