Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>> Thus spake "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>       
>> Indeed it does.  However, it has significant benefits as well:
>>     
> (snip)
>
> 	cannot agree more.  i do not care if it is based on TCP/UDP relaying
> 	(per session) or NAT-PT (per packet), but IPv6-to-IPv4 translators
> 	have its own benefits.  and of course drawbacks, but the drawback
> 	is much smaller than conventional IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT as we have an escape
> 	plan (use native IPv6).
>   

translators do have benefits, and can be mostly harmless with applied
judiciously.  the problems result from imposing translators in the
signal path to/from a significant number of hosts that are running
arbitrary applications. 

NAT-PT style translators can be just fine when used with a small number
of specific hosts for which it is known that the applications on those
hosts won't be harmed by the interposition of NAT-PT.  though frankly,
most users aren't capable of doing such analysis - just like most users
don't understand the harm that NAT does.


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