[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Roger Marquis]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, William Herrin wrote:
>> It isn't just network security professionals who won't give up NAT,
>> end-user consumers also won't.
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. Consumers generally use what the ISP
> provides.

Good point, but only to a degree.  Given that corporate sites will demand
NAT it will get implemented.  Once implemented consumers will follow.
Equipment manufacturers see this and are are reluctant to build gear that
they know will quickly become obsolete.  "Build a better mousetrap ..."
and all.  There are also increasing number of savvy consumers.

Note the similarities in this argument to ILEC's rational for disabling
cell phone features.  They've made hardware manufacturers jump through
hoops for years, disabling features and barring customers from much
wanted functionality.  As soon as one hardware maker offers a feature
(like the Palm Pre's MyTether, an EVDO/Wifi router) that game's over.
Offer a non-feature competitive smartphone and ILECs will find their
market has become much smaller than anticipated.  Same holds for NAT.
Offer feature-limited CPE that requires 1:1 and complex ACLs and ISPs
will end up shrinking their own market share (at least where competition
exists).

I'd also expect consumer advocacy organizations (like the EFF) to make
the case for privacy, especially when the same feature (NAT) also
protects consumers from vendor-locking.  While the IETF may no longer be
able to execute due to special interests, legislators can and will.  I
kind of doubt they'll be persuaded by arguments that NAT makes (illegal)
filesharing or obsolete protocols (SIP) "too hard" (on cheap CPE).
Legislators will surely hear from security engineers and their case will
be compelling.  The case for disabling features (NAT) and barring
customers from much wanted functionality (fixed and private internal
addresses) will not likely hold up in this public debate.

IMO,
Roger Marquis