RE: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: IP network address assignments/allocations information?



Bottom line, NAT or changing destination addresses on the fly breaks the end-to-end nature of Internetworking. This is true not only for IP, for for other protocols as well. Some may recall older DECNET IV networks that exceeded the maximim ~65K nodes. We had to come up with a scheme to make that work and it was ugly.

Even though we are not in the same situation as DECNET IV (we still have a lot of addresses available), we are (for other reasons already discussed) stuck with this NAT situation for the foreseeable future. It does absolutely no good to complain about the state of the world. It is what it is and all the complaining by the IETF won't change it.

It would do a lot of good to find a way to dig ourselves out of this situation. The Internet isn't going to stop growing and there will be future applications that require or desire a heck of a lot of public IP addresses. Other future applications may compromise some useful feature to be "NAT Friendly". This is not a good thing.

So we need to find a way to bridge ourselves to a new addressing architecture. IPv6 is one such architecture, but getting there is very, very difficult. So we need some alternative solutions in the meantime. And we need to continue to reassess how we might transition to such an architecture. The Internet will not stop changing so we need to be fluid in our transition schemes.

The IETF, IAB and IRTF are struggling with this and there is no neat short term fix. The NAT WG and the NGTRANS WG are a couple of places (I'm sure there are others) where folks are trying to help things along and we would appreciate your support.

P.S. Let me take this public moment to ask (beg!) for review of
draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-01.txt which I'm editing. If
you know of any particular protocol that has difficulty with basic
Network Address Translation, please send me the info in the format
of the above draft.

- Matt Holdrege - NAT WG co-chair




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.