Keith Moore wrote:
There's nothing special about P2P apps. The idea that all apps should communicate through some central server is myopic in the extreme. That kind
So you are talking about P2P then. Please make the business case for my company's allowing your P2P app to establish inbound connections without NAT? Without those specifics your assertions have no identifiable logic.
You're free to run (or prohibit) what you like on your own network, but your idea of what makes a good business case for your network has no bearing on whether IETF should endorse the use of NATs. Especially since use of NATs to enforce security is poor practice.
It's not my business case but the business case of just about every non-ISP and non-carrier connected to the Internet. t's t you're asserting as "myopic" is standard practice in the real world. Home and business users require NAT for 1) layer abstraction (no different, fundamentally, from the abstraction of Ethernet's MAC layer), 2) flexibility (unlinking internal from external and multi-homed topologies), and 3) security. By not providing non-NAT alternatives for any of these NAT features the case for a NATless IPv6 is like insurance company's arguments against universal health care, baseless fear mongering repeated again and again in hope of convincing those who dont know any better. IMO, Roger Marquis _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
