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

From: Caitlin Bestler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:14:57 -0600

On 1/8/03, Rod Van Meter wrote:

>> -----Mensagem original-----
>> De: Michael R. Cole [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Enviada em: terga-feira, 31 de dezembro de 2002 09:20
>> Para: [email-masked]
>> Assunto: Re: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues 
>> 
>> 
>> Your claim would also say that a timesharing system with
>> only 1 public IPv4 address would not work which is what
>> a cone NAT mimics. That is, a cone NAT fools that public
>> Internet into thinking that a LAN or other subnet is in
>> actuality a single machine.
>
>That's a gross oversimplification that eliminates the
>actual problem, so of course it doesn't sound bad when you
>put it that way.
>
>When a computer has a global address, you open a socket
>and get a port, and you can tell anyone anywhere in the
>world using any communications medium that they can reach
>you there.  You can call someone on the telephone and tell
>them, "My cool new game server is at port 1982 on
>1.2.3.4!" and it works.  You can send the info via snail
>mail, and it works.  One friend can tell another friend,
>and it works.
>
Virtually every NAT device I have seen is fully capable of
statically configuring any port to pass-thru to a specific
machine. In other words, the single virtual machine can
offer it service on any port and then use any of its
component machines to implement that service.

So the statement that a NAT creates a single virtual machine
is both very accurate, and highlights very precisely its
limitations.

The next question is how well that Virtual Machine
communicates internally. There are indeed NATs that have no
mechanism to dynamically determine the external port
associated with a given connection, or to dynamically create
a mapping. That is indeed a poor interface, but to be fair
it is a poor interface *within* the virtual machine. There
is nothing wrong with the interface presented to the public
Internet. The left hand not communicating with the right
hand is something any Internet host can achieve, whether it
is composed of a single or multiple machines.

The real point is not that "NAT is evil". There are
legitimate reasons for presenting a single virtual machine
to the public network. Rather the issue is that networks are
forced to use IPv4 NAT to solve other problems such as a
shortage of public IPv4 addresses and keeping the identity
of specific machines within a private network confidential.

NAT "breaks" applications when the hosts it is masquerading
are not actually part of an integrated whole. Properly
deployed, IPv6 allows each host within a private network to
have permanent and/or temporary public addresses as
required.

I believe NAT bashing is counter-productive to IPv6
deployment. Too many comments make it sound as though IPv6
advocates believe that only fools would use a NAT. A lot of
non-fools had very valid reasons to deploy NAT. The best way
to convince them that IPv6 offers better solutions to those
problems is by starting with acknowleding their legitimate
problems and understanding why they chose to deploy NATs in
the first place.

Caitlin Bestler
http://asomi.com/CaitlinBestler/

---

From: "Michael R. Cole" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 04:47:28 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Caitlin Bestler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: RES: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues

> http://asomi.com/CaitlinBestler/

Thank you very much for explaining why one of the NAT+gateway packages that
I have tried works so well (that I am tempted to buy it) and the commercial
version has features that should NOT be omitted from any connectivity
software.

However, with only a 33.6 Kbps dialup connection I cannot justify buying a
package yet. I can only justify playing around with a package for the 30-day
trial period.