[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ocean: do not boil
- To: "Behcet Sarikaya" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: ocean: do not boil
- From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:14:04 -0400
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:15:26 -0700
- Envelope-to: email@example.com
- Thread-index: AcJlbTBm6u0aMaVcTBONujou3xfYVQAZe3Kg
- Thread-topic: ocean: do not boil
What I hear and see in the planning of ipv6 with customers is they are doing everything they can to avoid the use of NAT with IPv6. But as Erik stated I also hear they are very worried about tunneling overhead and tunneling adds its own form of managed cost.
In the case of DSTM or ISATAP they have told me it MUST be implemented transparently to them. But the pain from NAT is the loss of end-2-end and that is what I hear as the driving factor for them moving to ipv6 when they exist with current NAT.
Now users who don't use NAT or who were duped into using it for security (this is too bad really but it happened) they have different view as network planners. What they would like to do is not have to suddenly use NAT when they now deploy IPv6. This seems illogical to them.
I think if we continue the discussion of the issues of a parallel v4 with v6 and tunnels or nats within the matrix of that we can provide at least a close set of results for different network definition behaviors.
This will also as a note help implementors like me build this as transparently as possible and choose which ones to do first. This is selfish need on my part clearly.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:59 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: ocean: do not boil
> Hi Jim,
> Bound, Jim wrote:
> >every input I get is that they don't want NAT and want it to
> go away as soon as possible. for "some" (I say some) I am
> being told how fast can I get rid of IPv4 period at least on
> my site. that "some" is as important as the Lowest Common
> Denominator or one size fits all view to me as an engineer.
> I would like to hope that you are right (and are in line with the
> operators and enterprises). For Keith, I understand, in academia one
> wants the latest.
> What are the views then on the issue of IPv6 NATs?