nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy network operators
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:37:48 +0200
On 16-apr-04, at 17:45, Paul Vixie wrote:
Unless I'm very much mistaken, this transition mechanism ("NAT-PT") translates from IPv6 to IPv4 and vice versa, NOT from IPv6 to IPv6.
sure, but abusing tools for purposes other than what they were made for is how most IT directors earn their salaries (though they don't call it that.)
I'm not entirely convinced, but replace NAT with a bunch of proxies and you basically have the same thing...
and i don't imagine the site-local address ranges will be given to a RIR, so folks who decide to number their enterprise in that range and then speak to "the internet" through an as-yet-unannounced ipv6-nat product will justdo that.
I'd love to be around and watch sparks fly when they start asking for the same ugly hacks in IPv6 that make NAT work to the degree that it does in IPv4. :-)
IETF multi6 wg is working on this problem. Hopefully it's possible to comeup with something that offers both scalability and functionality, as current PI and PA paradigms each only offer one.
as someone who cared deeply about this at one time and who watched A6/DNAME become a fly on the windshield of ietf backroom politics, i wish you luck.
Thank you.
it's important to remember that large network owners don't care about this,
It looks to me like many do...
and they are the ones who tell the vendors what to build. someone who wants to build a 3G network doesn't want A6/DNAME or any other added complexityadding logic and bugs to their handhelds or their cell towers.
So why are they sending their people to the IETF to work on mobile IPv6?? (Current MIPv6 spec is version 24 clocking in at 170 pages, implementing that can't be much fun.)
someone whowants to sell a lot of business-DSL is happier if their customers are locked in. so exactly where the multi6 group is planning to sell their results, ican't imagine.
Maybe to the customers of those business DSL shops? And easier multihoming sells more circuits, so I doubt we'll hear people with glass or copper in the ground complain.
Current thread:
- Re: Lazy network operators, (continued)
- Re: Lazy network operators Joel Jaeggli (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 15)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 15)
- Re: Lazy network operators Pekka Savola (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Niels Bakker (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Jakma (Apr 17)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 17)
- Re: Lazy network operators Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Apr 20)
- RE: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)