On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 5:13 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Open end to end connectivity was the point of IPv4 as well, it just got > left behind because of scarcity. Your solution works the same today with > NAT66 as it does with IPv4, why are you moving the goal post? >
My apologies--I didn't mean to come off as moving the goalposts. I was simply trying to point out that the "NAT is cancer!" war cry for IPv6 (without offering a better/more functional alternative) is a big part of why small businesses are so resistant to moving to IPv6. Apologies for the confusion. Matt > On Jun 17, 2026, at 8:03 PM, Matthew Petach <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 11:20 Douglas Fischer via NANOG < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> To consider that the entire problem lies solely in the stateful table of >> outgoing and incoming connections is bordering on lack of knowledge. > > >> [...] >> >> So... >> The real goal of IPv6 is not about using hexa ou integer to do some >> pings... >> Is about the communications being end-to-end and allowing >> non-server-centricity is precisely to get rid of all these little add-ons >> with each new application that is born on the Internet. >> > > So again I ask--are we saying the only answer for uplink redundancy in > IPv6 should be to get an ASN and PI address space and add another entry > into the DFZ routing table? > > Or do you have some other solution for redundancy in IPv6 that hasn't been > mentioned yet that doesn't involve BGP (which inflates the routing table > size) or NAT66 (which breaks the purity of the end to end communication > flow you think is the whole purpose of IPv6)? > > Because if you don't, I think you will have very effectively made my point > for why IPv4 is never going to be replaced by IPv6. :/ > > Matt > > >> Em qua., 17 de jun. de 2026 às 14:49, <[email protected]> escreveu: >> >> > NAT is fine (1:1), PAT is the cancer (1:Many). >> > >> > > On Jun 17, 2026, at 1:40 PM, Douglas Fischer via NANOG < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > NAT is cancer! >> > > NAT in IPv6 is spreading cancer cells to all the organs of a new, >> healthy >> > > body. >> > > >> > > NAT it's not just translate addresses... It needs to deal with the >> > > applications upper layers. >> > > NAT breaks everything that uses side-connections like P2P >> communications. >> > > >> > > In other words, this idea that NAT66 can save dual-isp-home >> connections >> > its >> > > a lie... >> > > It breaks the applications. Especially the end-to-end applications. >> > > >> > > Suggesting this kind of solution just reinforces the >> cloud-server-centric >> > > non-opt-outable that we already live with. >> > > That is the work way to go! >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/GAJQSKKDUMZD4YJWF4Q5JYKTL2ST24WL/
