Subject: Re: IPv6 Comment
To: None <email@example.com, kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Sean Doran <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/02/2000 17:21:14
| Sean's arguments can be amusing at times, even to the point of actually
| requiring some thought - this one was a weak effort.
It was just a reaction to the IPv6-love-in I was observing.
| Supposedly NAT is the solution to the address problem, so IPv6
| isn't needed. But NAT has all of these problems
ALG and PAT are problematic, but they, like NAT, compress address space
consumption, which reduces the need for the primary new benefit
the longer addresses bring. Pure NAT has side-effects,
namely that some applications break because they do not take into
consideration the increasingly wide deployment of NAT. PAT introduces
yet further side-effects. ALG attempts to mitigate these side-effects,
but infuriates purists who don't want their packet-payloads adjusted.
It is wise for people developing applications to take NAT/ALG/PAT into
consideration, just as it is wise for people developing applications
to take into consideration the deployment of IPv6.
Indeed, making assumptions about the network transport layer makes
it hard to transition an application to any new network transport layer.