[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

Gary T. Giesen ggiesen at akn.ca
Wed Mar 24 19:06:17 EDT 2010

I'm inclined to agree. Any perceived benefits from NAT are washed away
by the breaking of end-to-end connectivity. Which is partly what IPv6
was designed to rectify. Anything that NAT does can be achieved with a
firewall and a well-designed security architecture (such as segregation
of hosts into proper security zones, etc). Don't break IPv6 for the rest
of us because some people don't know how to design their networks. Let
those few suffer the consequences rather than the rest of us.


On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 18:51 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
> Is no one concerned that NAT breaks a lot of networking, especially
> peer-to-peer, and forces some really inefficient technologies, like
> SBC's, to exist?
> There is a lot of network media traffic (example, VoIP) that is
> unnecessarily backhauled across the internet because of NAT and in an
> NAT-less IPv6 world could use less network resources and be more reliable.
> -lee
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list