Re: IPv6 allocatin (was Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting)

[Michael Shields <shields () msrl com>]

In article <39B0343B.7FECFB0E () nominum com>,
"David R. Conrad" <David.Conrad () nominum com> wrote:
> Christian,
>
> > The point was a NAT'ed (masqueraded) network attempting to 
> > communicate with another NAT'ed (masqueraded) network.  That 
> > does NOT work for the vast majority of people on the Internet.  
>
> Hmmm.  If you never try something, can it be said to not work?
>
> Until such a scenario becomes _far_ more commonplace that it is today, I
> doubt anyone (other than end-to-end purists and the folks who have been
> bitten) will care.

It is a basic principle often used in both protocol design and ethics
that one cannot endorse a course of action that, if all were to follow
it, causes undesirable consequences.

If NAT is really the future, we must prepare for a world where NAT
is carried to its logical conclusion; all sites use NAT.  If that
ultimate future is undesirable, then we should not even start down the
road; we must conclude that NAT is not the future.  It can, then, be
at best an expedient hack.

If we accept that peer-to-peer communication is a design goal of the
Internet, then to make a convincing argument that NAT is the future,
you must outline how two sites behind a NAT can communicate with each
other conveniently.

Otherwise: "That does not scale."
-- 
Shields.