[arin-ppml] Just a reminder of some quick mathematicsfor IPv4that shows the long term impossibility of it

[Mark Smith]

On Tue, 17 May 2011 12:27:27 -0400
Chris Engel <cengel at conxeo.com> wrote:

> Mark,
>  
> > NAT isn't up to a matter of opinion. It is a matter of what the
> > Internet's design architecture is, and whether NAT can fit within that
> > architecture. NAT breaks end-to-end reachability and transparency
> > between the edges of the Internet, which is why it doesn't fit the
> > Internet's design architecture.
> > 
> 
> The same can be said of firewalls and spam filters and proxy servers. Guess what, VERY few people actually want "end-to-end reachability and transparency". The survey is out, privacy wins overwhelmingly. I don't WANT the inside of my network reachable and transparent to external users. Neither do the vast majority of endpoint network operators or individual users. We want to expose what we CHOOSE to advertise to the outside world....and keep everything else private....and we are willing to accept extra cost and complexity involved in running certain types of applications in order to do that.
> 
> On the Enterprise side of things, of which I am very familiar, most don't tend to WANT decentralized application models (i.e. peer-to-peer). They want to mandate that applications have to go through a central known point in order to be able to function properly. That facilitates better monitoring and application of policy on said applications, as well as easier support, in many cases.
> 
> 
> > The Internet is intended to be a dumb packet switching network, not one
> > that has to have an understanding of the applications that are running
> > over it. That's the fundamental difference between the Internet and a
> > traditional application specific network such as the PSTN - if you want
> > to run something other than voice over the PSTN (e.g. fax), you have to
> > make it look like a phone call. If you want to run an application over
> > the Internet (the no-NAT Internet), you don't have to care what it
> > looks like, because the Internet doesn't care what the application is.
> > The moment you add NAT is the moment "the Internet" needs to care about
> > the applications because it now has to translate any addresses carried
> > in them. You then also introduce a performance bottle neck, another
> > point of application failure and a traffic interception point at the
> > "public server" that is acting as a relay between the true end-points.
> > (Imagine a birthday party where nobody can talk directly to each other,
> > instead, all conversations have to go through the person having the
> > birthday ...)
> > 
> > For those in the pro-NAT camp, have a read of the following. Then if
> > you're still advocating NAT, you'll be more aware as to what
> > you're trading off.
> > 
> > RFC1627 - Network 10 Considered Harmful (Some Practices Shouldn't be
> > Codified)
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1627
> > 
> > RFC1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
> > 
> > RFC2775 - Internet Transparency
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2775
> > 
> > RFC2993 - Architectural Implications of NAT
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2993
> > 
> > 
> 
> I know EXACTLY what NAT does. It does EXACTLY what I INTEND it to do.  That's true for most network admins I'm familiar with as well as with most private individuals. I work and am friends with alot of other folks in various positions in IT. Not a single one of the people I know DOESN'T run RFC-1918 space on their home networks....and address availability has very little to do with that. The internet isn't one completely homogenous entity....it's thousands upon thousands of individual networks.... each of them has their own rules that they play by. If you don't like the rules that an individual network plays by....guess what...don't go there...chances are you aren't welcome.
> 

So you're saying you're going to choose to remain ignorant about NAT's
limitations, and the greater Internet architecture?

> Christopher Engel
> (representing only my own views)
>