Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

[Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at>]

Andy Davidson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:29:59AM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
>   
> > > Did you use Yahoo IM, AIM, or Skype?
> > >       
> > Yes, yes, and yes.  Works fine.
> >     
>
> What about every other service/protocol that users use today, 
> and might be invented tomorrow ?  Do & will they all work with 
> NAT ?
>   

Anyone inventing a new service/protocol that doesn't work with NAT isn't 
planning on success.
> Do many others work as well or act reliably through NAT ?
>   
Yes.
> Will it stop or hamper the innovation of new services on the
> internet ?
>   
Hasn't so far.
> The answer to these questions isn't a good one for users, so
> as the community that are best placed to defend service quality
> and innovation by preserving the end to end principal, it is 
> our responsibility to defend it to the best of our ability.
>   
Firewalls will always break the end-to-end principle, whether or not 
addresses are identical between the inside and outside or not.
> So get busy - v6 awareness, availability and abundancy are
> overdue for our end users.
>   
Maybe. Most of them are perfectly happy.

Matthew Kaufman