Re: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)

[Paul Timmins <paul () timmins net>]

On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 05:28, Avleen Vig wrote:
> > imagine a network without NAT. I stopped counting applications
> > that are struggling/breaking with NAT...
> > But many people still believe rfc1918 and NAT are a cool thing
> > because they just got used to it...
>
> They're a cool thing for other reasons.
> If "more IP addresses" is the only motivation for using IPv6, it's
> really not enough. For environments where direct access to the internet
> isn't required, NAT serves perfectly well.

At that point, so does application layer proxying. *shudder*

> There's also no *need* to use public IP's on a private internal-only
> network either, so it makes little sense to do so.

Ever tried to setup connectivity between the internal networks of two
different companies who both use the same RFC-1918 range internally?
VPN or PtP link, it's not fun either way, and usually involves heavy
packet mangling or renumbering the smaller (or less important
politically) side of the connection.

> The way I see it, there are a lot of reasons not to use IPv6..

Other than the new hardware investment, what? It's not really worse than IPv4,
and lets us get rid of this damned RFC-1918 stuff, even if you end up changing 
(pointlessly) the source IPv6 address of your packets, at least your network is
internally uniquely numbered. I'm tired of having to work around NAT limitations
for SIP, IPSEC, and all the other innovative stuff people haven't even bothered
to publicly release because it's horribly broken by NAT and they don't want to
support it. I'm tired of meticulously configuring my peer to peer clients to work
with my NAT, because the other guys don't configure theirs to and I can't download
anything.
I want my end to end back.
-Paul


-- 
Paul Timmins <paul () timmins net>