Operational challenges of no NAT

David Conrad drc at virtualized.org
Fri Oct 29 23:13:59 CEST 2010


On Oct 29, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> As has been documented several places, NAT provides functionality
>> (e.g., increased provider independence, reduced administrative
>> overhead/cost, topology hiding, etc.) that many folks find useful.
> All of that is not dependent on NAT and can be supplied by correct
> IPv6 deployment and a properly designed firewall.  

Actually, it can't.  That's sort of the point.  For example, with NAT, if I change my provider, few (if any) of my internal systems need to change addresses. No need to change any configurations, etc. In IPv6, the solution is to allow for multiple IP addresses, however since existing systems require the use of address literals in configuration, this can require non-trivial and potentially disruptive changes.  Yes, I can (now) get provider independence by getting PI space from RIRs, but with NAT, I don't need to become an RIR member to obtain addresses, wade through paperwork and pay a yearly fee. Etc.

> You believe those things are tied to NAT because NAT is all you know because that's what you have been
> raised with.  

Heh.  When I started doing stuff with IP, the "Internet" didn't even exist, so you might want to be a bit careful in your assumptions about what I was raised with.

> I'm frankly amazed you can spell the word.  Sorry that shaking your reality is so tough on you, boy.

Um, yeah.

As you appear to be a True Believer, I'm guessing further discussion is pointless.  Have a nice day.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list