[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks
craig.finseth at state.mn.us
Fri Mar 26 17:11:03 EDT 2010
>> I believe that it means exactly what I intended per the definition below=
>> =A0admit (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.
As a consumer, I'm not aware of voting at all...
More realistically, I haven't got a choice: the Cisco 675(or 8) that I
use doesn't support v6, so I'm stuck until it gets upgraded.
Yes, I use NAT and have a way of organizing my internal network: this
puts me above 99.99...% of all consumers.
If I was using v6, I wouldn't need NAT at all.
I strongly suspect that most consumers use NAT because that's how
their providers configure it and couldn't care less (or even know)
More information about the ARIN-PPML