Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>]

On 1-jul-2007, at 18:46, Keith Moore wrote:

> NAT-PT really needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.  It  
> provides
> all of the disadvantages of IPv4+NAT with all of the transition  
> costs of
> IPv6.  If there is ever any significant penetration of NAT-PT, then  
> the
> pseudo-IPv6 network will not be able to support any more kinds of
> applications than the NATted IPv4 does today.

First of all, this is the worst kind of ivory tower thinking. How am  
I supposed to run IPv6 and access the IPv4 world without a mechanism  
like NAT-PT? Killing that without providing an alternative was a very  
bad move that will come back to haunt the IETF. (And although the  
problems with NAT-PT are real, they're not THAT bad.)

And you're wrong, too. With NAT-PT and a DNS ALG in effect, you have  
NAT-incumbered access to the IPv4 world, which is not good because  
IPv6 stuff isn't built to work with NAT. But at least you have access  
to the IPv4 world. But your access to the IPv6 world is completely  
trouble free, which is the point.

The following draft should appear in due course (it's only 4 pages):

http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-v6ops-connect- 
method-00.txt

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf