On Mar 26, 2022, at 8:30 PM, Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> It still looks like NAT to me. > > Almost all the people, perhaps other than you, accept NAT > as is to keep IPv4 Internet or as part of transition > plan from IPv4 to IPv6. > >> NAT is a disgusting hack and destroys the universal peer to peer >> nature of the internet in favor of a consumer/provider model. > > As I repeatedly pointed out, end to end NAT is clean preserving > the universal peer to peer nature of the Internet. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00 > > The basic idea is to let NAT boxes perform address translations > only without adjusting check sums or translating ports and > to let end systems perform reverse address translations, > which restores correct check sums, and port number > restrictions. > > Masataka Ohta
I have yet to find an economical way to manage a business merger involving two large rfc1918 networks where end to end peering is required and which partially or fully overlap. Ignoring short-sighted financial management views, the best long term solution is globally unique IPv6 addressing wherever possible. Local islands of IPv4 gatewayed or NATted with local management continue to be possible.
