[arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Mon Nov 2 11:54:38 EST 2009

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Chris Engel
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 10:19 AM
> To: 'arin-ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern
> IPv6's best chance of adoption is to make the transition from IPv4 as
> seamless as possible for everyone involved. Which also largely means not
> necessitating a change of the methodologies and practices that people
> currently use with IPv4 more then is really required. It also means not
> tying other agenda's to IPv6's bandwagon.
> The one thing that I think pretty much everyone can agree is a positive
> with IPv6 is more address space available....at least I certainly don't
> think anyone would perceive that as a negative. The more things that you
> require people surrender in order to achieve that additional address space
> (in my case it would be primarily NAT... but it could be anything else for
> some-one else).... the less likely it is they are to determine the
> positives outweigh the negatives of adoption.
> If an argument is worthy of making (such as the idea that NAT is bad and
> need be eliminated).... let that crusade be fought SEPARATELY from IPv6.
> The same holds true for things ARIN is directly responsible for...such as
> rules for the justification of IP address space.
> IPv6 may ALLOW for those issues to be addressed (such as some make the
> case it allows for the obsolescence of NAT or far more liberal
> requirements for receiving address space)..... however it should not
> NECESSITATE that they be....unless IPv6 itself cannot be made to function
> without them..... and if it does, then it's design is poorly conceived.
> Christopher Engel

NAT started out as a kludgy local workaround and will always pretty much be
a local workaround. NAT is nothing more than a silly router trick.
Administrators can do whatever they darn well please within their own
networks.  NAT affects only the internal operation of a network.  NAT does
not affect global routing one iota.  There is no information passed to the
world that allows the far end to de-obfuscate NAT, except perhaps machine
identifiers sent as a proprietary attribute.

Just because NAT is not "built in" to the IPv6 protocols does not mean it
can or will not be done.  

I do not think we should or even have the ability to do something like
outlawing NAT.  If an administrator decides he wants to NAT he is going to
be able to do it no matter what any of us say or do unless you are going to
get all of the major players to rip NAT code out of all of the router OS's
and server OS's. Even then people will just patch it back in if they want
it.  Discussions about whether to allow or proscribe NAT are pointless.  NAT
is not within the ARIN sphere of influence.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20091102/15eecf6d/attachment.bin>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list