On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:12:12 -0700 Scott Leibrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > The above hosts are Internet connected and most likely will thus also > > end up > > talking to the Internet at one point or another. I can thus only guess that > > they will be wanting to fully connect to the Internet one day and the > > generic solution to that problem is NAT. We wanted to get rid of NAT for > > IPv6. If NAT is again being done for IPv6 then we can just as well give up > > and just keep on using IPv4 as there really is not a single advantage then > > anymore to IPv6. > > > > > I think what we wanted to get rid of in IPv6 was one-to-many NAT, also > know as PAT (among other names). In IPv6, we can stick to one-to-one > NAT, which eliminates most of the nastiness we associate with NAT in > today's IPv4 world. > Getting rid of PAT doesn't eliminate a number of other problems that NAT creates, which Keith Moore has documented here : http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html I particularly think inhibiting deploying new transport layer protocols is a real drawback of NAT. It seems that VoIP might be the next "killer app" for the Internet, and DCCP would be ideal for it. Unfortunately, I think the IPv4 NATs out there are going to prevent it getting any deployment traction over IPv4. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
