W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Application protocols and Address Translation

From: Carl Ford <carl@ietfwatch.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:01:34 -0600
Message-Id: <200212022301.gB2N1Yj03106@samsara.kgbinternet.com>
To: John Angelmo <john@veidit.net>, Carl Ford <carl@ietfwatch.net>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, discuss@apps.ietf.org


My point was not to argue the issue.  My point was that the IT manager has an
ease of use with NATs that is a two stage process at least with IANA.  And
that is not mentioning the routing requirements.  If I were being paid on
getting the end users up, the value of going to IPv6 would seem pretty weak.

So to combat this the value has to be more fully explained.

Kind Regards,


> Carl Ford wrote:
> > One aspect of this to be discussed is the ease of use of getting the IP
> > addresses.  Nats have a simple plug and play value that is a counter-balance
> > to getting IP addresses allocated. Particularly when most folks have used the
> > ISP for this function.
> > 
> Well the NAT problem gets bigger and bigger every day. I think the race 
> on IPv4 is lost here, it's better to concentrare on IPv6 and have good 
> IP rules that every user gets a big net and good documentation from the 
> ISP on how to use it.
> Things must be easy for the end user and SMB otherwise we are stuck in a 
> new NAT swamp.
> /John

Sent from KGB Internet Solutions OpenWebMail
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 18:02:21 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 24 February 2004 19:46:24 EST