RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-aoun-v6ops-natpt-deprecate-00.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

This is a fundamental deployment argument than one about NAT-PT, but 
nevertheless I guess this should be said..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
> As Senthil points out, the assumption that NAT-PT deployment will stifle
> innovation in v6 seems flawed. NAT-PT is a transition mechanism which is
> essential for wider V6 deployment. Without NAT-PT, you will see bigger
> resistance to deploying V6 . You need NAT-PT for legacy applications (ex:
> e-mail, ftp) to work as is across V4 and V6 realms. 

This ('NAT-PT.. essential for wider V6 deployment') may or may not be
true if you assume that there will be strong incentives for deploying
IPv6-only systems which need to talk to a vast majority of v4 systems
in the near future.  If that's not the case, it's certainly not
correct -- you can deploy IPv6 as dual-stack without any need for
NAT-PT.  And dual-stack is definitely the simplest way to deploy IPv6.

> No change to end-hosts or
> applications. This is the attraction of NAT-PT. This is not the same as the
> proxy solution that will require applications to be changed/recompiled. 

You don't need to change end-hosts or applications (in the manner you
probably mean) if you deploy dual-stack.  If you deploy v6-only, you 
need to change end-hosts MORE than with dual-stack.

I have the feeling that most typical applications applications already
support proxies or have inherent support for middleboxes (e.g., http,
smtp, dns, ftp).  Changes are only necessary if one would like to
pursue a generic 'SOCKS' -like approach for IPv6 deployment, but that
has not gotten much deployment AFAICS.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings