Subject: (NAT) IPv6 is coming, isn't it?

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:47:08 +0000

At 16:49 09/03/99 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
>Steve Deering wrote:
>> If all the effort being spent on hacks to get around lack of IPv4 address
>> space were spent on getting IPv6 deployed instead, it would probably be
>> here by now.

<cheer>  (as one who has been guilty of the hacking mentioned)

>If there were a registry handing out blocks of IPv6 addresses to
>companies, and many other infrastructure components in place, your
>statement would be QUITE applicable.

Do we know what it is that is is holding up deployment of IPv6?

Looking from the outside, the case for IPv6 is very strong, and I feel I've
been waiting for the "right things" to happen for several years now.  Are
we stuck in one of those situations where everyone is waiting for someone
else to take an initiative to move the process forward, or are there still
genuine technical/organizational obstacles that still need to be overcome?

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])

-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.

---

From: Scott Silzer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:18:51 -0500

This post may be late but :

The issue of the validity of NAT and the implemenation of IPv6 are two
different things, it is taking the wrong approach. It is like when the
goverment spends 500 dollars on a screw driver insted of questioning the
500 dollar cost you suggest we should increase the budget.

Yes the internet community should be moving to IPv6 but that is not an
excuse for not conserving public IP space with things like NAT and Name
Based Virtual Hosting.  Every day I have this discussion with new users who
want a full class C for their LAN to run a mail server and "get on the net"
when they could use 2 public IP's and NAT on their router.

I have seen a number of companies that have large blocks of public IP's
behind their Firewalls and could have used NAT or Nat Overload or what ever
it will be called;  but the issue of NAT is the correct usage of public and
private IP's not the creation of more IP's.

>genuine technical/organizational obstacles that still need to be overcome?

Scott Silzer
MailTo:[email-masked]
GlobalServe Communications
A Primus Canada Company
1-888-CITYNET
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:08:45 +0000

I'm a rabid supporter of IPv6, but may I suggest that we don't waste
air time on IPv6 on the NAT list? Even the interesting topic of
migration from IPv4 NAT to pure IPv6 is a topic for the NGTRANS
group, IMHO.

    Brian
-

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:42:44 -0500

Scott,

But if NAT breaks a function they need for their business then that
solution is unacceptable.

Or if NAT prevents them tomorrow using something they need like IPsec
then that is also unaccpetable.

I agree waste is bad.  But before anyone says use NAT the health warnings
should be checked to do it and recommend it to a user with integrity.

/jim
-