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

From: "Mike Borella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:38:59 -0600

I wouldn't want to conserve v6 space by using NAT - this seems
completely unnecessary.  The nice thing about v6 is that it will get
rid of the problems that are currently making NAT necessary.  Given
our experience with v4, one hopes that v6 allocation strategies will not
make the same mistakes.

In any case, it certainly is plausible that a NAT-like solution, such as
RSIP can help the transition.  It is likely that v6 will first be deployed
on edge or stub networks, while v4 remains in the core or backbones.
RSIP could allocate v4 addresses to v6/v4 hosts very easily.  v6
communication could occur locally while v4 would be tunneled over
the v6 net to the v4 core. Then once the core is v6, we're all happy.

I don't follow ngtrans, but I'd be surprised if something similar hasn't
already been proposed.

-Mike

Scott Silzer <[email-masked]> on 03/11/99 01:04:30 PM

Please respond to Scott Silzer <[email-masked]>

To:   [email-masked] , Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
cc:   [email-masked] (Mike Borella/MW/US/3Com)
Subject:  Re: (NAT) IPv6 is coming, isn't it?

This may be off topic but it does relate to NAT.

It does not matter if you use IPv4 or IPv6 IP's will allways be a finite
resource and every attempt should be made to consirve IP space. In the most
part I have dealt with end users who do not need to use more then one or
two IP's but they have never been asked to justify there usage of IP's (
ie. my last ISP gave me a whole class C and you dont want to give me even
32 IP) . If a router with nat can do the job why waste the IP space. If the
end user has no requirement for a device to be accesable to the outside
world why should it get a public IP.

This is the same as some one who says I have 64 domains and one server I
need 64 IP's why when one can do the job.

I don't think that every one should use NAT but why not use it as much as
one can.

At 12:30 PM -0500 3/11/99, Michael P DiGioia wrote:
>Jim,
>
>>>Or if NAT prevents them tomorrow using something they need like IPsec
>>>then that is also unaccpetable.
>
>As you may or may not know, NAT, as defined in the original IETF draft, was
>never intended to be a permanent fix for the IP address shortage. Rather
>a good temporary solution to bridge the gap between IpV4 and IpV6.
>
>Since that time, many implementation of NAT have been created and are in use
>all over the world. A working group exists call NAT to advance it. And now
>we see comments like this.
>
>Well its my understanding that this can't happen because you either have
>IpV6 with IPsec or you don't.
>
>/mpd
>-
>To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
>'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.

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.

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

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 22:40:18 -0500

Hi Mike,

>I don't follow ngtrans, but I'd be surprised if something similar hasn't

Not at all.  RSIP is doing something we need.  Recall though when you
presented DNAT to NGTRANS and they did not receive it
well as work for NGTRANS.  Maybe we should revisit that again on
NGTRANS.  RSIP is in my pile with other NAT docs to read in depth.  But 
I can't make the NAT meeting and leave Thursday and it too late for 
Minneapolis now I think, but you may want to send mail to Bob Fink or 
Tony Hain the chairs. In fact I keep telling folks the printers out 
there ain't doing IPv6 for a long time and will be IPv4.  So I see no 
option but for users to use private addresses and IPv4 for there printers 
when we ship them an IPv6 stack.  RSIP "realms" would be very useful for 
transition is my guess.  My assumption above too is that no one will
ship a product that is NOT v4/v6 stack both for awhile.  Internet
Toaster I think is at least 5 years away where the average user can
afford it.  I had hopes for the NC's embedded systems as IPv6 ONLY but
NCs are not moving as soon as I had hoped they would on v4 either.

p.s. I agreed with your other IPv6 statements too.

/jim

-

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:50:04 +0000

Mike Borella wrote:
...
> I don't follow ngtrans, but I'd be surprised if something similar hasn't

draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-01.txt

   Brian
-