[ale] Looking for advise on domain names and other info wrt local network.

[Forsaken]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:22:36 -0400
"Michael B. Trausch" <mike at trausch.us> wrote:

> The only real problem is that people are kind of freaking out over
> IPv6 at the moment and trying to introduce some sort of NAT for it.
> This disturbs me a little bit because the Internet was never meant to
> be NAT'ed left and right.  It was designed to be a large collection of
> machines that are able to communicate with each other.  If NAT is
> successfully introduced into IPv6, then ISPs will have little
> incentive to give people a routable subnet and then we'll just be
> stuck with the same ugly mess as we're in today... that is, having to
> have non-routable networks hidden behind a single address, which is
> really annoying.

While I agree that NAT'ing ipv6 is kind of a retarded approach, I can
see where the paranoia would kick in. After all, no one ever thought
ipv4 space would be an issue back in the old days either.

And it's kind of hard to dog on folks for wanting to add features. I
mean, the Internet as it was designed never had a seperate service for
name resolution, and I don't think that anyone is going to argue that
we should all still be passing around host files. Innovation has always
been a good thing, even if some jobs are ugly ugly hacks. 

And with your point being that the internet was designed to allow a
large group of machines to communicate with each other.... well, you're
right. And NAT actually enhances that. Because seriously, if NAT
hadn't been developed, then we would have exhausted the ipv4 space
years ago (and I'll ignore the benefit of NAT when it comes to
integrating two networks with the same RFC1918 addressing scheme)