[arin-ppml] The role of NAT in IPv6

Chris Engel cengel at sponsordirect.com
Fri Apr 16 17:55:18 EDT 2010

As I see it, the debate over NAT is largely unresolvable because the people in either camp have mutualy exclusive/contradictory goals and values.

Those who value NAT, outside of it's role in address conservation (which is no longer applicable in IPv6), value it expressly because it provides a layer of abstraction and obfuscation between thier internal and external network archtecture.

Those who find NAT harmful and objectionable do so specificaly because it retards transparency into internal archetectures.

These are competing goals. Though I think they both have thier values, but you can't impliment both at the same time in the same space.

I believe that whichever goal has greater value is HIGHLY dependant upon the specific situation it applied to....and that is best left upto the individual directly responsible for that situation to determine...... and I believe that it's important that we have a net and address policy which is flexible enough to support such individuals REGARDLESS of which path they choose.

I think that is the gist of the wisdom which David Farmer brought to this discussion here.... having policy that can support a diverse community of users.

I have no problem with anyone drafting policies, protocols, rfc's or technologies designed to reduce the NECCESSITY for deploying NAT.... but I have a HUGE problem when people start talking about measures aimed toward retarding the ABILITY to deploy NAT for those who value it. I don't believe the later has any proper place in address policy discussion. My 2 cents.

Christopher Engel

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list