[arin-ppml] The role of NAT in IPv6

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Gary T. Giesen <ggiesen at akn.ca> wrote:
> If you think it's wrong to use IP allocation policy as a tool for a
> prescriptive approach to NAT in IPv6 (or lack thereof), we're already
> using it as a measure to constrain BGP table growth, which like NAT, is
> a cost shared mostly not by the route originator (read: NAT
> implementer), but by everyone else.

Respectfully Gary, that doesn't follow.

Route announcements have a direct, real cost. Your route announcement
consumes resources in tens of thousands of routers, compelling those
routers' owners to spend money. Use of NAT has, at worst, an
opportunity cost. Because someone uses NAT, you lose the opportunity
to vend an incompatible product or service.

Shall we use ARIN policy to require registrants to wear pink dresses
because you might have trouble selling them pink dresses if we don't?


> 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.

The cost of your breathing is borne by everyone else who has to muddle
through with that much less oxygen. Shall I object? Perhaps you should
hold your breath.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004