On 2010-04-20, at 14:59, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 4/20/2010 10:29 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: >> Interesting how the artificial roadblocks to NAT66 are both delaying the >> transition to IPv6 and increasing the demand for NAT in both protocols. >> Nicely illustrates the risk when customer demand (for NAT) is ignored. > > This is really tiresome. IPv4 NAT existed commercially long before there was > any effort at standardizing it.
Another way of looking at that would be that IPv4 NAT existed commercially despite massive resistance to the idea of standardising it. I think it is fair to say that standardisation would have saved many developers from a certain amount of pain and suffering. It'd be nice to think that with v6 the pressures that caused v4 NAT to be a good idea no longer exist. v6 is being deployed into a world where it's normal to assume residential users have more than one device, for example. However, in enterprise/campus environments I think the pressure for NAT66 is not because there are technical problems that NAT66 would solve, but rather because there's a generation of common wisdom that says that NAT is how you build enterprise/campus networks. This is unfortunate. Hopefully I'm wrong. Joe
