On Apr 7, 2012, at 2:30 40PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> Sorry for arriving late at the party.
>
> If people want NAT so badly, let them have it. It will be better to have a
> standardized NATv6 than the multiple, non-standard and sometimes downright
> bizarre implementations of NAT we have now. Just keep it in a way such as
> that the future Internet MUST be a place were NATs are OPTIONAL and not
> FORCED down one's throat like they are now.
The problem is that protocol designs these days have to account for NAT, which
often makes things far more complicated than necessary.
>
> I also believe that if ULAs hadn't been named ULAs but RFC1918 for IPv6 or
> "private IPv6 space" we wouldn't be having much of this conversation. Many,
> many people outside these IETF mailing lists just don't grok that ULAs are
> little more than that. I also tend to panic a little when people want to
> deprecate ULAs. I just don't see the point of doing this, while I keep seeing
> a lot of use cases for private space.
>
> I hate NATs with port translation on single public IPs. Things break, many
> times inexplicably. People have this rather inexplicable warm feeling that
> they are somewhat 'safer' behind NATs. I picture them standing in front of a
> tornado with an umbrella in hand and feeling protected.
>
> However, I can live with prefix translation, in fact, I believe it can be
> just the tool that small businesses need to save themselves renumbering
> efforts and keep some of the warm feeling as well.
That's locator/ID split -- too bad v6 wasn't designed for that...
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
