Subject: (NAT) IPv6 and NAT

From: "Joris Dobbelsteen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:27:21 +0200

Maybe an issue for the IPv6 and NAT Workgroups.

NAT was proposed as a temporary solution for the shortage of IP address,
which is solved with the IPv6 protocol. Currently I don't expect IPv6 to be
deployed soon (within 1 or 2 years). My ISP, nor many ISPs, aren't promoting
IPv6 yet, nor Microsoft provides IPv6 support for it's OSes.
But as finally IPv6 has been deployed world-wide, what will we do with NAT?

A disadvantage of NAT is that some protocols don't work good/correctly
through NAT. Here NAT broke the principle of the Internet, where every node
should be able to have bidirectional and end-to-end communication. FTP and
many games require this to operate correctly.

However, some scenarios where NAT provides THE solution, are for
* private networks that may not be exposed to the Internet   and
* for networks that have only one IP address available to use on the
Internet,
while host on the private network are required to make 'direct' connections
to the Internet.

I don't think NAT should be made obsolete or unneeded after IPv6 has been
deployed, but rather to be offered for some purposes on small and home
networks. Most companies and bussinesses (even small ones) will be able to
afford a dedicated Internet Connection with a couple IP addresses,
esspecially after IPv6 has been deployed.
However I don't expect my ISP to provide me more than one IP address,
because I don't have a dedicated connection (yet) and I even haven't got one
static IP address (just DHCP). Also I want to separate 'MY' network from the
Internet, and don't install more network adapters into computers and lay
networking cable than needed. This requirement without having to make
strange configurations to any other computers on the network.

That's what's so good about NAT, from my point of view....

- Joris

-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:00:58 -0700

Joris,

Before you post to these groups, it would be a real good idea to read some 
of the RFC's and Drafts that have been produced on this topic. 
Specifically, you should read 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-nat-implications-09.txt and 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-04.txt

-

---

From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:02:27 -0700

>From: Joris Dobbelsteen <[email-masked]>
>To: IPng WG (E-mail) <[email-masked]>; NAT WG (E-mail)
><[email-masked]>
>Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 8:27 AM
>Subject: (NAT) IPv6 and NAT

> networks.

A couple of things:

1) I don't think that anybody is in the position
of being able to mandate NAT out of existence -
if service providers/network operators feel that
there's justification for continuing to translate
addresses, they will do just that

2) In voice services there's a requirement to be
able to hide calling party addresses on a policy
basis.  NAT is one way to effect this (although
arguably not the best, given the numerous problems
it causes).  A few people in the voice community
are claiming, however, that no terminal should
have a public IP address and that there should
be "address policy domains."  I don't find their
arguments for it particularly compelling and I'm
not even going to try to represent them, but my
guess is that this is going to be an argument
we'll be having in a year or so.

At any rate, I think that point 1 above is the
salient one.

Melinda

-