Can Large Scale NAT Save IPv4?

Julie188 writes "The sales pitch was that IPv6, with its zillions of new IP addresses, would eliminate the need for network address translation altogether. But Jeff Doyle, one of the guys who literally wrote the book on IPv6, suggests that not only will NAT be needed, but it will be needed to save IPv4 at the tipping point of IPv6 adoption. 'I've written previously that as we make the slow — and long overdue — transition from IPv4 to IPv6, we will soon be stuck with an awkward interim period in which the only new globally routable addresses we can get are IPv6, but most public content we want to reach is still IPv4. Large Scale NAT (LSN, also known as Carrier Grade NAT or CGN) is an essential tool for stretching a service provider's public IPv4 address space during this transitional period.'"

Comments

NOOOOOOO

[santax]

Stop the madness. Give us ip6. We (as a society) would gain so many productive hours without NAT and the shit that comes with it. (Portforwarding etc). We have the technology ready to go and give everything it's unique ip. Can we please use that tech? It's not like it's high-tech or to new to be implemented by now.

Re:NOOOOOOO

[lanner]

I don't think non-networking guys really understand the harm that NAT/PAT/masq has done.

I am talking economic damage. NAT has cost you money. It's cost you a LOT of money. It cost your company money. It cost everyone who uses computer an ASS LOAD OF MONEY totally wasted on a cheap hack to get around the fact that we needed a better addressing system.

All the wasted software time which talented people worked for, and NAT is just a work-around.

All the money wasted PAYING for above mentioned software, salaries, time.

All of the needless hardware and software implementations related to NAT.

Anyone who runs a large Cisco PIX/ASA platform can bemoan the number of statics needed between network interfaces.

Think about the apps that had a really hard time working because of NAT. The games that could not peer-to-peer because both sides were behind NAT.

Think about all of the companies that have multiple DNS views -- inside, and then public. That's a ton of extra work.

Best thing of all that I look forward to in IPv6 is... the idiots that it will wring out of the IT/comp-sci sector. Idiot sysadmins that label their servers with IPv4 addresses, idiot programmers who won't learn IPv6 and will get the boot to the curb that they have long deserved.

If you can't handle it, GTFO lamers. You don't need to know your workstation's IP address -- you need to know it's hostname and how to use DNS. I can't tell you the number of places I've worked at where people hard-code IP addresses into config files and the damage that it has caused, along with labeling servers/printers/whatever with their IPv4 address.

NAT is a money maker!!!

[DigiShaman]

ISPs are licking their chops for this. They want to roll out NAT for all default consumer grade ISP connections. It solves problems with scarcity, they profit from scarcity (want public IP? You pay extra for it), and it will jack with routing of P2P data and thus cut down on the leeches. It's a WIN-WIN-WIN for the Telco and cable companies.

If you guys think IP6 will be adopted, just wait till they find huge money in artificial scarcity of IP4 blocks. There will be no where to run and escape it! Unless you pay that premium...

Re:Hasn't it already?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

why would I want them on publicly accessible IP addresses

Because they're globally unique. You'll never have a conflict of address when you start doing business with other entities with large networks or because the hotel just so happens to be using the same private addresses as a network you're trying to make a VPN connection to from your laptop.

And just because they're public addresses doesn't mean they're publicly accessible.