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

[Tony Hain]

Chris,

Check out RFC 4864, as it specifically discusses the objectives people have
for using nat beyond address conservation, and provides IPv6 alternatives
that don't mangle the header. I agree with your premise that people will
want to continue doing what they do today, because they are busy and don't
really want to figure out a new approach to solving an old problem. The
point of 4864 is to present the alternatives and remove the need for
repetitive searching for a solution. While the authors spent most of the
time trying to collect all the uses people believe they need a nat for,
there is no assumption that this is a complete list. If you have use cases
that are not covered, please say so, and we will work on an update to be
more comprehensive.

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Chris Engel
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:06 PM
> To: 'Paul G. Timmins'; Joe Maimon; Chris Grundemann
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern
> 
> Paul,
> 
> 
> Respectfully, that is because for the vast majority of Network/System
> Admins IPv6 and the details of it's implementation are barely a blip on
> the radar screen....if that.
> 
> I can attest that NAT is a tool which see's extensive use among said
> Admins...and NOT simply because one cannot obtain enough public IP
> addresses. As I believe I have illustrated...it has a variety of useful
> functionality for us. I can assure you that if something in IPv6 does
> not offer the equivalent functionality to that which NAT currently
> provides for IPV4 and in a similarly convenient manner.....you are
> going to hear a VERY loud wailing and gnashing of teeth from this
> population.
> 
> I'm sure that is a sound that will resonate with equipment vendors.
> However without some confidence that some sort of NAT66 solution will
> be provided (or nearly identical functionality can be
> achieved).....your going to see alot of resistance in this population
> to IPv6 adoption.
> 
> If you want people to actually be SUPPORTIVE of that adoption rather
> then RESISTANT then you have to provide some assurance that the tools
> they are used to working with to solve real problems will be available
> in some form.....or at the very least a substitute that achieves
> equivalent functionality and is easily translatable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Taking this to its logical conclusion, it's not necessary for
> community consensus to implement NAT66. If people demand it, and
> equipment vendors want to implement it, they will, and then will
> standardize it after the fact, much like many other current standards
> have been done.
> 
> The fact that no such standard exists and no platform I'm aware of
> implements NAT66 is pretty telling in and of itself.
> 
> -Paul"
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.