Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00.txt <PROXIES>

[Baker Fred <fred@cisco.com>]

On Apr 4, 2005, at 4:01 AM, John Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP wrote:

> I do believe the most compelling arguments supporting the elimination 
> of NAT
> in the IPv6 architecture need a discussion of what you can achieve - 
> and
> what you give up - if you deploy proxies.

Speaking for myself, I very much agree. The big marketing thing for 
IPv6 is the end to end architecture. What ULAs do is summarily discard 
that, and what proxies do when so configured is what NATs do 
automatically.

Think about it this way. Right now, with IPv4, someone that wants to 
implement wireless in their home buys a Linksys box at the store, 
screws it to the wall, and applies power. Job done. With IPv6, they 
will be able to do the same thing some day in the future when ISPs 
distribute a /64 to each house via DHCP and when Linksys sees enough 
market to put IPv6 into the system. Until then, you can manually 
configure a ULA and a proxy.

Given the options, what does T.C. Mits install in his house? I submit 
that he installs IPv4 and a NAT. It is easier and gets him what he 
thought he was buying.

If we think ULAs are going to commonly *replace* end to end addressing, 
that is something that somebody needs to analyze, and since that is yet 
another variation on a NAT, it seems like it should go here.