RE: quietly....

[Matthew Huff <mhuff () ox com>]

> Overloaded NAT is too costly to the community to be allowed to promulgate
> into IPv6. It is detrimental to:
>       Application development
>       Innovation
>       Security
>       Auditing
>       Cost:
>               Cost of application development
>               Cost of devices
>               Cost of administration
>               Cost of operations
>
> People that hold steadfast to the idea of not implementing IPv6 without
> NAT will eventually become IPv4 islands. The rest of the internet will
> continue to innovate without them and they will eventually come along
> or they will be left behind.
>
> Owen

Owen, can you point to a application protocol that is broken via NAT that isn't a p2p protocol or VoIP? Corporations 
are interested in neither (except SIP trunking, which works fine with NAT). Corporate networks have zero interest in 
p2p protocols or allowing desktops to be "full members" of the ip world.

Like I posted earlier, there are signficant reasons to use NAT44 and NAT66 that have nothing to do with perceived 
security, but rather with virtualization of ip endpoints/ip routing used by companies such as TNS and BTRadianz for 
extranet connectivity. From our standpoint NAT44 is a signifcant cost reduction because it allows us to make changes to 
internal environments without having to coordinate with all of our extranet partners. The difference is significant. In 
a very simple example, changing one of our FIX servers with the extranet clients being twice-natted, requires one 
change on one firewall. If I had to contact all the clients (and no, they can't use dynamic routing and/or DNS), then 
it would require hours of paperwork and time coordinating it. It's not even close.