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

From: [email-masked] (Michael P DiGioia)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:30:03 -0500

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.

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:48:36 -0500

responding to a completely different jist.  the jist I was responding to
was when I would recomend nat and when I would not.
it has nothing to do with what the IETF is doing for nat or v6.

/jim
-

---

From: Scott Silzer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:04:30 -0500

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.

>'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.

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:18:50 -0500

Scott,

I see your point. I could say more but as you said its off the topic.
I won't add anymore unless the chairs think this thread is useful.

thanks
/jim
-

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:16:29 -0800

At 12:30 PM 3/11/99 -0500, Michael P DiGioia wrote:
>A working group exists call NAT to advance it.

WG co-chair here. The NAT working group is NOT about advancing NAT. Please
read our charter at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nat-charter.html to
see what our working group and this email list is about.

-

---

From: John Bartas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:55:54 -0800

>a good temporary solution to bridge the gap between IpV4 and IpV6.

	...Analogous to SNMP's introduction as a good temporary solution to bridge
the gap until CMIP is ready :-)

-JB-

#############################################################
          H
(==)o(==) H John Bartas - Main Propeller head
   _I_    H InterNiche Technologies Inc. (408) 257-8014
  /   \   H 21801 Stevens Creek Blvd. Suite 5
  -----   H Cupertino, Ca. 95014
   O O    H [email-masked] (remove foo)
    "     H <http://www.iniche.com/>www.iniche.com
  \___/   H 

-

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:52:56 +0000

Scott Silzer wrote:
...
> I don't think that every one should use NAT but why not use it as much as

draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-00.txt
draft-iab-nat-implications-03.txt

That's why not. Use NAT when you have to.

   Brian
-