Operational challenges of no NAT

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Fri Oct 29 23:00:48 CEST 2010

On 10/29/2010 12:34 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Brian,
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Most folks simply aren't interested in "paradigm shifts" in
>>> utility infrastructure.
>> It's sad, after only twenty years, to see PTT (a.k.a. Ma Bell)
>> attitudes so embedded in the ISP community.
> No.  Not ISPs.  In my experience, ISPs have become quite active in
> investigating ways of deploying IPv6 in ways that are useful to their
> customers. This obviously makes sense since it is the ISPs that are
> going to be the ones first impacted by the lack of IP addresses.
> The folks not interested in paradigm shifts, as demonstrated by the
> lack of significant IPv6 deployment, are pretty much everybody else
> (modulo the tiny percentage of geeks and early adopters).  These
> folks do not want to care how things work.

Exactly!  Which means they couldn't care less if their p0rn is
delivered by IPv6 NAT or not.  So with that axiom, why is NAT
so important for IPv6????

> The fact that IPv6 makes
> them have to care is probably the worst failing of IPv6.

Nope.  It makes YOU care since your the admin charged with figuring
out how to keep them sucking on the Internet teat when the milk changes
to IPv6.


> Regards, -drc

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list