On 4/8/12 15:54 , Steven Bellovin wrote: > > 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
it's not unilateral either, the party that wants to reach me a lisp overlay also needs to have it available. Which gets you to the problem of incentives.
