Subject: RE: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:25:21 -0700

> Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> The point I was making is that if an NNTP connection fails because
> the firewall is *configured* to say 'None Shall Pass' (insert Monty
> Python .wav here ;) then that is *proper* behavior.  If a VOIP
> connection fails because the NAT is saying 'None Shall Pass', then
> that's *broken* behavior.

IMHO what you don't get is that in most cases, BOTH say 'None Shall
Pass' and that would be a normal behavior for both.

Don't get me wrong, I do not defend NAT. The point I was trying to make
is this: it is a waste of time to say that NAT sucks. We know it. For
IPv4, it's too late to change. IMHO, here is the deal: IPv4 NAT does
suck, but there is nothing we can do to remove it; so the only worthy
efforts are 1) maybe try to make it less worse (I will not go as far as
saying better) and 2) let's not make the same mistake with IPv6.

Michel.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 06:31:57 -0400

> IPv4, it's too late to change. 

The reason that we are explaining (once again) why NAT sucks is that some
people in this community are still in denial about that, and those people
impair our ability to do useful work.  So we're trying to educate them, or at
least beat them senseless, so they'll get out of the way.

> IMHO, here is the deal: IPv4 NAT does

that's it in a nutshell.