[arin-ppml] The role of NAT in IPv6

[Joe Maimon]

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>

>> Despite what you guys may think, NAT is an attractive
>> solution to many people to address certain specific issues.
>
> Sure. But NAT will be much rarer in IPv6 and mostly on
> corporate gateways, not the kind of standard feature
> that it is today. In any case, are there any NAT implementations
> available yet for IPv6?
>
> --Michael Dillon

nat = napt66;

I am unconvinced that stub/end/residential/consumer user deployment via 
DHCP-PD or whatever iteration of the solution to the problem of 
extending routing to these classes of user's device(s) (which to be 
precise is a form of inter-autonomous system routing) will prove more 
satisfactory and successful when compared to the complete workaround to 
the problem (while creating others) that nat allows for.

The market, consisting of users, providers, manufactures and default 
"default settings" will decide this one, as they did for IPv4.

Eventually.

However, it is a fact that there are many people who continue to assert 
that nat has positive security implications for them.

And others have posted still other motivations for nat that even readily 
available globally unique addresses may not obviate to the complete 
satisfaction of potential nat users.

So while I expect that nat utilization will almost certainly lessen from 
its current state of near universal presence, perhaps to the point of 
rarity (at least for the end user masses), I neither believe it is fated 
for extinction, nor do I believe behaviors assuming or intending 
extinction are prudent.

I do believe it is worthwhile to invest in policies and technologies 
that remove or lessen motivations for nat. I do not consider my views 
contradictory.

Joe