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

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Mon Nov 2 13:17:27 EST 2009

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Roger Marquis
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 11:58 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern
> Kevin Kargel wrote:
> > 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.
> Whether or not NAT is "kludgy", a "workaround", or "silly" is an opinion.
> It is an opinion not supported by fact i.e., the market for end-node
> network gear without NAT, which is effectively zero.  As a result
> arguments
> against NAT are irrelevant.

Precisely my point.

> > Just because NAT is not "built in" to the IPv6 protocols does not mean
> it
> > can or will not be done.
> This wasn't the case for v4, why would v6 be different?  Applications like
> SIP hack (workaround, kludge, ...) the ISO 7 layer model in ways it was
> not
> intended to be hacked, and will need to be accommodated.  To keep NAT
> implementations and libraries from being numerous, and to avoid
> incompatibilities, a standard is required.

I agree wholeheartedly.  IPv4 was not originally implemented with NAT in
mind, then people had a need and "kludged" a solution.  IPv6 will be the
same.  If for whatever reason some administrator feels a need for IPv6 NAT
they will figure out a way to implement it, whether it is 'recommended' or
'allowed' or whatever.  The history of internet is resplendent with examples
of hacks that worked and became SOP.  That is not going to stop because the
numbering scheme changes.

> To state this another way, those of us who manage end-nodes will not be
> purchasing IPv6 network gear that fails to support a standardized version
> of NAT.  Manufacturers will in turn not offer such equipment knowing it
> will not sell.  How anyone can continue to argue that IPv6 does not
> require
I am by no means arguing that IPv6 does not require NAT, I am arguing that
NAT is something that will run over and under NAT and is separate from the
global protocol.  I don't think it will be possible to write NAT out of the
picture.  People will continue to do what they want with their networks and
I am sure in many cases that will include NAT.

> NAT in light of this is beyond me, but I do hope you work for a
> competitor.
Wow, a little sensitive are we?  It seems I struck a glancing blow to a
nerve here.  I hope you read again, I was not arguing that NAT is not
needed, just that it is beside the point.  Why argue about something that is
going to happen no matter what we say?

There will always be people who want NAT, if for no other reason than they
are comfortable with and enjoy the 'pseudo' security layer.  
> Roger Marquis
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- 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/eb103c07/attachment.bin>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list