On Apr 27, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > 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.
Respectfully, I disagree. There are many possible innovations that are available in a NAT-less world and it is desirable to get to that point rather than hamper future innovation with this obsolete baggage. >> Do many others work as well or act reliably through NAT ? >> > Yes. In reality, it's more like some yes, some not so much. >> Will it stop or hamper the innovation of new services on the >> internet ? >> > Hasn't so far. Here I have to call BS... I know of a number of cases where it has. >> 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. Yes and no. Firewalls will always break the idea of global universal end-to-end reachability. The do not break the end-to-end principle except when NAT is involved. The end-to-end principle is that the original layer 3+ information arrives at the layer 3 destination un-mangled by intermediate devices when it is a permitted type of traffic. Blocking unwanted flows does not break the end-to-end principle. Maiming and distorting data contained in the datagram, including the headers, on the other hand does break the end-to-end principle. >> So get busy - v6 awareness, availability and abundancy are >> overdue for our end users. >> > Maybe. Most of them are perfectly happy. > This word Most, it does not mean what you appear to think it means. Owen
