Re: IPv4 flag day

[Matthew Petach via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 5:13 PM <sronan () ronan-online com> wrote:

> Open end to end connectivity was the point of IPv4 as well, it just got
> left behind because of scarcity. Your solution works the same today with
> NAT66 as it does with IPv4, why are you moving the goal post?


My apologies--I didn't mean to come off as moving the goalposts.  I was
simply trying to point out that the "NAT is cancer!" war cry for IPv6
(without offering a better/more functional alternative) is a big part of
why small businesses are so resistant to moving to IPv6.

Apologies for the confusion.

Matt


> On Jun 17, 2026, at 8:03 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 11:20 Douglas Fischer via NANOG <
> nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> > To consider that the entire problem lies solely in the stateful table of
> > outgoing and incoming connections is bordering on lack of knowledge.
>
>
> > [...]
> >
> > So...
> > The real goal of IPv6 is not about using hexa ou integer to do some
> > pings...
> > Is about the communications being end-to-end and allowing
> > non-server-centricity is precisely to get rid of all these little add-ons
> > with each new application that is born on the Internet.
>
> So again I ask--are we saying the only answer for uplink redundancy in
> IPv6 should be to get an ASN and PI address space and add another entry
> into the DFZ routing table?
>
> Or do you have some other solution for redundancy in IPv6 that hasn't been
> mentioned yet that doesn't involve BGP (which inflates the routing table
> size) or NAT66 (which breaks the purity of the end to end communication
> flow you think is the whole purpose of IPv6)?
>
> Because if you don't, I think you will have very effectively made my point
> for why IPv4 is never going to be replaced by IPv6.  :/
>
> Matt
>
>
> > Em qua., 17 de jun. de 2026 às 14:49, <sronan () ronan-online com> escreveu:
> >
> > > NAT is fine (1:1), PAT is the cancer (1:Many).
> > >
> > > > On Jun 17, 2026, at 1:40 PM, Douglas Fischer via NANOG <
> > > nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > > > NAT is cancer!
> > > > NAT in IPv6 is spreading cancer cells to all the organs of a new,
> > healthy
> > > > body.
> > > >
> > > > NAT it's not just translate addresses... It needs to deal with the
> > > > applications upper layers.
> > > > NAT breaks everything that uses side-connections like P2P
> > communications.
> > > > In other words, this idea that NAT66 can save dual-isp-home
> > connections
> > > its
> > > > a lie...
> > > > It breaks the applications. Especially the end-to-end applications.
> > > >
> > > > Suggesting this kind of solution just reinforces the
> > cloud-server-centric
> > > > non-opt-outable that we already live with.
> > > > That is the work way to go!
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/GAJQSKKDUMZD4YJWF4Q5JYKTL2ST24WL/