[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

Roger Marquis marquis at roble.com
Fri Mar 26 16:55:55 EDT 2010

>> 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.

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.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list