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

[Joe Maimon]

Chris Grundemann wrote:

> 
> You are used to using it, habits are not all good.
> 
> with a smile,
> ~Chris

Now that is a flimsy objection, even while true. Eradicating NAT should 
not be about rehabilitating network administrators habits and preferences.

It should come by itself, on the day that it offers no positive 
cost-benefit-ratio to anyone.

NAT does allow admins and orgs to organize their networks in the manner 
they wish under their own control.

For all those who want them to do so with public IPv6, unless they all 
use PI ipv6, that argument is specious - as soon as they change their 
providers they may have to change their scheme. That means they do not 
control it.

Automatic renumbering. That is not synonymous with network addressing 
control and design, even were it to work for all renumbering issues 
under the sun. Which it clearly does not.

Do we want to require every organization who wants to control their 
internal addressing to get ipv6 PI?

That could easily amount to hundreds of thousands. I am not quite 
certain thats really a great way to go. And I am not quite certain that 
for these organizations anything other than PI space thats exactly 
utilitarian equivalent to all other PI space fits the bill, with all due 
respect to SHIM6, HIB, LISP.

Furthermore, assuming PI IPv6 removes any technical benefit NAT offers 
to an organizations internal addressing control, it can require them to 
do things differently than they are comfortable with. And all because 
NAT is evil.

Why is NAT evil?

Because it puts obstacles into end users utilizing protocols in the 
manner they wish.

Is not that what you are doing by advocating denying NAT to these 
administrators, the end users of these protocols? If they are quite 
satisfied dealing with the obstacles and limitations NAT brings them 
with IPv4, why the strenuous objections to allowing them to continue 
that way with IPv6?

So whats the real reason NAT is so hated?

Because it also gives protocol designers and people OTHER than the end 
user or network administrator grief.

So in summary, NAT66 detractors want to override network administrators 
habits and concerns because it makes their world view happier.

That seems a bit one sided.

Allow network administrators to decide on their own whether or not NAT66 
fits their needs. If protocols continued to be designed that cause 
issues when used with NAT, allow the network administrators the 
independence to decide whether they want to put up with it or not, 
whether the cost-benefit-ratio supports their use of NAT or not.

Thats what IPv6 should bring to NAT. Choice. Instead it is currently 
serving the ulterior agenda to remove the choice to use NAT.

Let the chips fall where they will.

Which will probably happen anyways without all this debate of 
questionable value.

Educating people on the new ways to do things is good, campaigning to 
not allow old ways of doing things to work is bad.

Joe