From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "...NATs are one of the most successful IETF technologies..." ====
NAT did not come from the IETF...the ISOC opposes them... http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/1098/int.html NATs are a no-no HEATH: I was going to say that IEEE Spectrum should make it very clear that this group's consensus would appear to be: let's discourage NATs--I mean the manufacture of them at all--because there is a real need for IPv6. HUITEMA: It's more than that. There is a real need for security and you can't have security with NATs. CERF: NAT is a guaranteed spoofing box in effect. =================================================== NAT is part of the collection of techniques that build on the existing IPv4 header. That collection is called IPv8... Jim Fleming http://www.IPv8.info ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:34 AM Subject: RE: site-locals > Elliot, > > > Given that if the mechanism exists we know people will develop NAT > > functionality in order to isolate enterprises from IP address changes, > > what is the benefit of going forward at all with IP version 6? A large > > address space is useless if you only need a small one. We already have > > that. > > Do you think that people will use the mechanism if it exists - or will they > create such a mechanism if it doesn't exist? > > What I mean is that NATs are one of the most successful IETF technologies > of the decade or so (if you consider deployment, use, etc.). Many of us > may not like it, though, however, it seems that NATs have fulfilled a > real need in the market place - some several seem to be: > > 1) Provider (ISP) independent addresses > 2) Increase address space > 3) Access Control > ... and so forth > > Not all of the above reasons will go away with IPv6 - and I am quite sure > that many network administrators will still administer IPv6 networks in > a similar manner as IPv4. However, I still think that IPv6 will bring many > benefits and hopefully people are capable of learning new paradigms. > > So, getting rid of site locals doesn't remove much of the motivation, and > there are no ready solutions to fulfill some real needs; which worries me. > Is it possible that by killing site locals, we set the stage for people to > do something worse? Will people still use FE0C, even if it is deprecated? > Will people pick random prefixes for use as site local / private addresses? > What is the amount of work to depreciate site locals - how many RFCs need > to be updated? I'm not convinced that deprecating site locals really solves > anything. > > John > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
