[arin-ppml] CGN multiplier was: RE: Input on an article by Geoff Huston (potentially/myopically off-topic addendum)
bill at herrin.us
Fri Sep 16 12:24:31 EDT 2011
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.
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
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.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML