Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

[Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>]

Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <498A3CA5.6060801 () internode com au>, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
> > Anthony Roberts wrote:
> > > On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
> > > <mmc () internode com au> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set 
> > > > of problems.  A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
> > > >     
> > > It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll still want
> > > their stuff behind a firewall, and some of them will want subnets.
> > >   
> > Why do we want to prevent people using NAT?   If people choose to use 
> > NAT, then I have no issue with that. 
> >
> > This anti-NAT zealotism is tiring and misplaced. 
>
>       NAT's break lots of things and increase the development
>       costs of every piece of network based software being written.
>
>       If we could get a true accounting of the extra cost imposed
>       by NAT's I would say it would be in the trillions of dollars.
>
>       NAT's are a necessary evil in IPv4.  If every node that
>       currently communicates to something the other side of a NAT
>       was to have a global address then we would have already run
>       out of IPv4 addresses.
>
>       NAT's are not a necessary evil in IPv6.  Just stop being
>       scared to renumber.  Addresses are not forever and when you
>       design for that renumbering get easier and easier.
>
>       For everything else there are alternate solutions.


Far too many people see NAT as synonymous with a firewall so they think
if you take away their NAT you're taking away the security of a firewall.

A *lot* of these problems we face are conceptual rather than technological.

~Seth