Subject: RES: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues

From: "Marcelo Barbosa Lima" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:26:21 -0200

FOlks,

  Look, please, in this URL. It seems that Microsoft wants to impulsionate Ipv6 development too :-).
http://news.com.com/2100-1033-885664.html
Best Regards,

			Marcelo

-----Mensagem original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Enviada em: sábado, 28 de dezembro de 2002 07:04
Para: Keith Moore
Cc: [email-masked]
Assunto: Re: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues

Keith,

Thank you for your input. I have looked at various angles on this but
end up at a dead-end every time. As in my earlier postings looking at
IPv6 and the many obvious advatages in QoS, multicast, routing, address
space, mobility, etc, there is always an IPv4 solution for this. The
solution may be a dodgy patch, not as streamlined or designed from the
ground up as the IPv6 version, but it works and John Q. Public is not
going to rush out now or even look at including an IPv6 subnet in  his
current IPv4 setup.

The key word here is 'now'. Perhaps later or of course when 3G networks
are available, but when?. A good example is to look at the Y2K issue.
Most companies started addressing the issue at the last minute only. And
this could possibly be the path with the IP address shortage issue.

So what compelling enough reason can be presented to Mr. John here for
him to even consider IPv6. Even start looking at a staggered transition
plan. Or even hardware/software developers -most of these are either
from Europe and Japan.

Regards,
-nick/

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:46:59 -0500

Hi Fred,

Missed the light part.  My apologies.  It is just some are so rude in
email I cannot help but wish them the worst from that view.  And I do.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred L. Templin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:35 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Keith Moore; Marcelo Barbosa Lima; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: RES: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues
> 
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Bound, Jim wrote:
> > Fred,
> > 
> > I did not think Keiths mail was insulting.
> 
> Exactly why I prefaced my note with "No offense intended";
> just trying to make light of an ongoing discussion that has
> (to me) become almost humerous by its cyclical nature. (Ever 
> see the movie "Groundhog Day"?)
> 
> Perhaps this was inappropriate, and hopefully has come at no 
> expense to Keith (apologies if it has). I certainly didn't 
> intend to single Keith out as being solely responsible for 
> perpetuating the thread.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Fred
> [email-masked]
> 
>

---

From: "Brian Zill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:58:07 -0800

> Keith Moore SHOULD have written:
> 
> NAT breaks Unix applications but not Windows applications.

Er, no.  There is nothing magical about your choice of operating system
with regards to Internet architecture.  Maybe you've been lucky with the
particular applications you use, but I can guarantee you that there are
both Unix and Windows applications (and versions of the same application
for the different platforms) that do not work through a NAT.  It's the
functionality of the app, not the platform on which it runs, that
matters here.

> My opinion: the original purpose of TCP port numbers and UDP 
> port numbers was to allow more than one process or user to 
> share the same connection or other resource.

> LIkewise, NAT essentially does the same thing on the other 
> end by allowing a LAN or other subnet to pretend to be a 
> single timesharing machine with only ONE IPv4 address.

NAT is not equivalent to how a node may multiplex the use of one IP
address among multiple data streams via the disambiguating port numbers.
NATs create a new private address space and expose it to applications as
if it were their real address.  If apps pass their (private) view of
their address around in the data stream to other nodes (which may be
outside of the private space, or worse, in a different instantiation of
the same private space), bad things happen.  Yes, some NATs try to
mitigate these problems by recognizing packets from such apps and
modifying the data stream -- but this is prone to error.  Also, the NAT
needs to know about every such app, making it hard to deploy new apps.
There are various other NAT traversal strategies out there, but none
fully solve the problem.  My opinion: the right way to fix the problems
caused by NAT is to deploy IPv6 and thus restore the Internet to the
state it was before NATs broke it.

--Brian