[arin-ppml] The role of NAT in IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 15, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Chris Engel wrote:

> 
> Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> 
>> As Owen has pointed out many times, the cost of supporting
>> NAT is rarely borne by the person implementing it. It's borne
>> by everyone else trying to sell services to the the NAT'd customer.
> 
> So let me get this straight, you're complaining that your customers demand support for X functionality (NAT or fill in whatever blank you want) in the services that you are trying to sell them and then assert how unfair it is that you have to carry the costs of meeting your own (potential) customers demand?
> 
I'm not sure what Gary is asserting. However, I suspect his assertion
is similar to mine...

I'm asserting that NAT creates the following costs borne by people
providing services to NON-NATTed customers who have nothing
whatsoever to do with NAT:

	1.	Additional troubleshooting difficulty/cost (web sites, services,
		network providers, network providers selling to web sites, etc.)
	2.	Additional software complexity (ISVs)
	3.	Decreased security (inability to correlate events/logs)
	4.	Increased legal costs (see 3)

> Let me introduce you to this concept called a "free market economy".
> 
Even in a free market economy, you're not supposed to dump toxic
chemicals in the river upstream from my water treatment plant.


Owen