In message <20090205030522.13D152B21F3@mx5.roble.com>, Roger Marquis writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be renewed when it next falls due. You may get assigned a different set of addresses at that point. You should plan accordingly.
Exactly the problem, and the reason A) IPv6 is not and will not be a viable option any time soon (soon being before the publication of an IPv6 NAT RFC), and B) why network providers (and other parties who stand to gain financially) are firmly against IPv6 NAT.
If we could get a true accounting of the extra cost imposed by NAT's I would say it would be in the trillions of dollars.
This is exactly the sort of hyperbole, like RFC4864's proposing that application-layer proxies are a viable substitute for NAT, that discredits IPv6 proponents. Those who remember the financial industry's push for SET, a failed encryption technology, will be struck by the similarities in technical vs rhetorical arguments.
Perhaps what we need is an IPv6 NAT FAQ? I'm suspect many junior network engineers will be interested in the rational behind statements like:
* NAT disadvantage #1: it costs a lot of money to do NAT (compared to what it saves consumers, ILECs, or ISPs?)
* NAT disadvantage #2 (re: your IPv6 address space) Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now. (say again?)
* NAT disadvantage #3: RFC1918 was created because people were afraid of running out of addresses. (in 1992?)
* NAT disadvantage #4: It requires more renumbering to join conflicting RFC1918 subnets than would IPv6 to change ISPs. (got stats?)
* NAT disadvantage #5: it provides no real security. (even if it were true this could not, logically, be a disadvantage)
OTOH, the claimed advantages of NAT do seem to hold water somewhat better:
* NAT advantage #1: it protects consumers from vendor (network provider) lock-in.
Nope.
* NAT advantage #2: it protects consumers from add-on fees for addresses space. (ISPs and ARIN, APNIC, ...)
Only until the consumers get wind of any rip-off pricing. RIR's are charging ISP's about the same for a IPv6 /48 as they do the a IPv4 address.
* NAT advantage #3: it prevents upstreams from limiting consumers' internal address space. (will anyone need more than a /48, to be asked in 2018)
We already know some will need more than a /48. /48 was only ever described as meeting the requirements of *most* business and consumers.
* NAT advantage #4: it requires new (and old) protocols to adhere to the ISO seven layer model.
Given were are running IP that is fiticious.
* NAT advantage #5: it does not require replacement security measures to protect against netscans, portscans, broadcasts (particularly microsoft netbios), and other malicious inbound traffic.
What replacement? You just buy a IPv6 router with a firewall. It will be about the same cost as a IPv4 router with a NAT.
IMHO, Roger Marquis
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org