Subject: RE: why market picked up NATs [Re: Writeups on why RFC1918 is bad?]

From: "Amoakoh Gyasi-Agyei" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:20:08 +1000

If you continue to be bound by NAT how are you going to connect all the
many many mobile devices to the Internet to exploit the services of
upcoming mobile Internet? Is NAT useful for mobile devices?

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 September 2003 1:55 PM
To: Ron Lee
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: why market picked up NATs [Re: Writeups on why RFC1918 is
bad?]

> Is it really true that most of the market chose to use NAT rather than

> tunneling or dual-stack for IPv6 transition mechanism?

there is zero truth to that.  if you're going to use NAT there is
(almost) no point in using IPv6.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:47:17 -0700

Bob,

> Bob Hinden wrote:
> I figured it would be hypocritical for me to run NAT at home
> and work on IPv6 in the IETF

I don't think so. I am not ashamed of running IPv4 NAT at home and
working on IPv6; it's a matter of money.

> so I was willing to pay a bit more money.

If not indiscrete, how many IPv4 addresses and how much $$$ are we
talking about? Given the number of hosts I have on my home setup (I need
a /27) the only realistic option I have to run NAT-free is to bring in a
T1 (as no reliable residential broadband provider is willing to give me
a /27), which still is $500/mo (local loop + transit) instead of the
$49/mo I am paying for my aDSL. I'm sorry, but this is a car payment for
a Mercedes-Benz, and unless someone on the list is willing to fork out
$450/mo I will stick with NAT.

The number of addresses will not be an issue with IPv6, but this not why
people would use IPv6 NAT if given a working box.

Michel.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:04:13 -0700

Eliot,

> Eliot Lear wrote:
> DING DING.... IPv4-0-Meter just went off.
> Why is this an issue in v6-land, assuming you can get a v6
> consumer networking device?

My point exactly. Can Cisco/Linksys deliver a $40 IPv6 consumer device?
:-D
Hey, I'd fork out the $40 just to see it if it comes with TAC support.

Michel.

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:03:15 -0700

Michel,

>$450/mo I will stick with NAT.

I pay about $80. a month and have a /28 and a /30.  I will provide the 
details and the name of the ISP off list.

Bob