[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 26, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:

>>> I believe that it means exactly what I intended per the definition below.
>>>  admit (an event or activity) as legal or acceptable
>>> fail to prevent (something) from happening
>> 
>> Why then I apologize, because I thought you meant to convey that NAT
>> should be *required* to become obsolete with IPv4, perhaps by
>> obstructing folks' choice to use it in IPv6. Surely Roger only meant
>> to offer his opinion that given a choice, few network security
>> professionals would choose to abandon the use NAT.
> 
> It isn't just network security professionals who won't give up NAT,
> end-user consumers also won't.  If anything is clear from the past few
> year's field trials it's that IPv6 has received a vote of no confidence
> from consumers.  It has received that thumbs down primarily because it
> lacks address translation.
> 
Um, What?!?

Things actually slowing down residential IPv6 deployment:

	+	Lack of CPE support
	+	Lack of Head-End (PON concentrator, DSLAM, CMTS, etc.) support
	+	Lack of support from the ISP

One only need look at the free.fr deployment to see that consumers are
actually embracing IPv6 when it is readily available to them without NAT.

> IMO there's no painless way to transition to IPv6 without NAT.  Compound
> that with the security issues created by the lack of NAT and, well, you
> have where we are today.
> 
Having actually transitioned to dual stack without NAT (in either stack) and
without any security issues resulting from that fact, I'm perfectly willing to
say that I do not believe you because I have experience otherwise.

Owen