[arin-ppml] The role of NAT in IPv6

[Gary T. Giesen]

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 18:01 -0400, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 17:48 -0400, 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?
> > 
> Actually what I'm really arguing for is for people to understand in IPv6
> you don't generally need NAT (with the arguable exception of a few
> corner cases, which even those can be resolved). 
> 
> I'm arguing for people not to take the same perceptions they have about
> how things work in IPv4 and apply them to IPv6 just because it's
> familiar and comfortable. I'm arguing for a new way to do things in IPv6
> (and as the creators of IPv6 seem to have intended). 
> 
> I'm arguing that IPv6 is not just IPv4 with more addresses (although
> that, in and of itself, changes things). They're getting used to a new
> protocol anyways, let's go that extra step and educate them about what
> IPv6 offers, and why they don't have to do things the old way (and why
> the new way is better).
> 
> What I'm saying is that if we all agree the support costs for supporting
> a customer who is NAT'd compared to one who is not (even if they're
> using a stateful firewall) are greater, and that in IPv6 land I can show
> there's no longer any useful reason for NAT (and we can eliminate the
> arguable corner cases) then why would we pollute our nice shiny new
> protocol with the ugly beast that is NAT.
> 
> > Let me introduce you to this concept called a "free market economy".
> > 
> There's never been a free market economy in IP allocations... Otherwise
> I might be acquiring IPs from eBay rather than ARIN. 

And let me just follow up that last comment by saying if we make IP
policy in such a way that NAT is unattractive enough (because of ULA-C
address unavailability, which is the prime breeding ground for NAT; or
make GUA cheap and easy enough to get) then market economics will
dictate it dies with IPv4.
> > 
> > Christopher Engel
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.