[arin-ppml] CGN multiplier was: RE: Input on an article by Geoff Huston (potentially/myopically off-topic addendum)

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Chris Grundemann
<cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> What's so terribly wrong is that if you don't deploy IPv6 then I am
> forced to continue to support IPv4, even worse, if you add layers of
> NAT and other such kludges in order to do it, you are subjecting all
> of my traffic to you to pass through those kludges by not also
> supporting IPv6 and giving me a clear path.

Chris,

Like the song says: the big, bad world doesn’t owe you a thing. Get over it.


>> If you want IPv6 to be the new standard then your best
>> bet is to actually make it attractive for people to use,
>> not try to shove it down peoples throat. Aside from
>> costs, one of my big stumbling blocks to considering
>> IPv6 for my organization is a lack of support for the
>> sort of functionality NAT/PAT gave me in IPv4. [...]
>>You don't win support for something by telling people
>> their needs/wants/concerns are not legitimate.
>
> Perhaps you should read this RFC: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296.

Why should he do that? 6296 describes the IPv6 version of an IPv4
technology that was unwanted 15 years ago.

I want the IPv6 version of the thing called "NAT" in my DLink and
Linksys boxes, not a rehash of the obsolete idea from RFC 1631. I
predict I'll have it too... Long before IPv6 deployment reaches a
state where I'd need to consider deploying to my NAT-using systems
without it.

Which is not to say there aren't plenty of places where I'd choose to
replace NAT with something other than NAT,  but there are also plenty
of places I wouldn't. I find the zealots' arguments as to why I should
replace NAT everywhere unconvincing.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004