[ppml] *Spam?* Re: IPv6 flawed?

[Kevin Kargel]

I also agree with and support your first paragraph.  In a neutral
decision I will try to side with the more liberal postion.  I don't know
if I will go so far as to say what we were discussing was a neutral
decision.

I do believe the assumption that NAT would not be necessary was part and
parcel with the core of current IPv6 design.  I will go on to say that
any enterprise or carrier class router or firewall I know of has the
capability to do header rewriting, so whether or not there is a protocol
for NAT any technically competent admin who really wants to do it will
be able to, whether under IPv4 or IPv6.  

If they broke the ability to rewrite headers there would be a lot of
functionality besides NAT we would lose. 

Kevin

:$s/worry/happy/g 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:03 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel; 
> Subject: RE: [ppml] *Spam?* Re: IPv6 flawed?
> 
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On 
> Behalf Of 
> >Kevin Kargel
> >Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 12:10 PM
> >To: ppml at arin.net
> >Subject: Re: [ppml] *Spam?* Re: IPv6 flawed?
> >
> >
> > Ted,
> >	I completely hear what you are saying, and I agree that 
> the situation 
> >not only exists but is just as drastic as you are saying.
> >This is not a unique situation, and exists with distressing 
> frequency.
> >	Having stipulated that, bad network design should not 
> be a driver for 
> >protocol specification.  Rather, a good protocol 
> specification should 
> >be a leading factor to good network design.
> 
> Bad network design should not LIMIT good protocol design.  
> But, if while your designing your good protocol you have two 
> different ways of doing something, both equally good for your 
> purposes, why would you pick the way that causes problems for 
> the people who have bad networks, when you could pick the way 
> that would be neutral to their bad networks?
> 
> I can't say one way or another if IETF has deliberately made 
> choices with IPv6 that make it more difficult to design an 
> IPv6 NAT, simply for the sake of making it more difficult to 
> design an IPv6 NAT.  Since, I'm not tasked with designing an 
> IPv6 NAT and have not researched it.
> But, from what some people
> seem to have said in the past, an outsider would certainly 
> draw that conclusion.
> 
> Ted
>