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

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Wed Sep 14 12:30:59 EDT 2011

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 09:53, Chris Engel <cengel at conxeo.com> wrote:

> There may, indeed, be some or even many individual organizations that choose to adopt CGN as long term alternative solutions to IPv6. However, if they can make it work well for them and their community of users....what's so terribly wrong with that?  It may not have been the choice you preferred...but that's what it means to live in a free society...you don't get to make other peoples choices for them.

Then why do you get to force me to continue to use a broken legacy protocol?

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.

> 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. What do I find almost every strong proponent of IPv6's response to that? Is it "Yeah, some-one should really define a standard for that?" or "Hey take a look at what this vendor is working on, it might fit your needs?".  No,  instead I get, "You're wrong for wanting that. That should never be supported by IPv6."  Well guess where I'm going to look to address IPv4 runout if that's the case?  Really, sometimes I think people have no clue how free market systems work. 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.
I won't delve into the debate of the perceived merits of NAT, as this
is a policy list, not a religious one.


> Christopher Engel
> _______________________________________________
> 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