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

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 14:09 -0400, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 10:28 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > NAT is being proposed for IPv6 in the IETF as a v4 <-> v6 transition
> > mechanism.  It's not being proposed for the same purposes as v4 NAT.
> > There are plenty of free IPv6 /48 networks to pass around.  The ISP's
> > will have no excuse.

> Ahh, I missed that little tidbit---As usual, the huge amount of
> spactacular fuss on the 'net is over some little tidbit of missed
> information that is (conveniently) left out of a lot of writings on the
> subject.

	Couple of references on that...

	NATs necessary for IPv6, says IETF chair
	http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=hardware_and_devices&articleId=9110399&taxonomyId=140&intsrc=kc_feat

> Isn't it ironic that the IETF is developing NAT mechanisms for IPv6
> when IPv6 has been touted for years as a way of ridding the Internet
> of NATs?
> 
> Yes. I expect the address translation between IPv4 and IPv6 to be
> deployed at different places in the Internet than we have seen
> strictly IPv4 NAT. Further, the desire is for these NAT devices to be
> needed only during the transition period. That transition will
> certainly not be quick, but when it is over, the need for NAT should
> go away.
> 
> Are NATs for IPv6 a necessary evil?
> 
> They are necessary for a smooth transition from IPv4 to IPv6 so that
> the important properties of the Internet are preserved.

	IPv6 to Get Much-Maligned Feature
	http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/148754/ipv6_to_get_muchmaligned_feature.html


> But because it has taken so long to migrate the Internet from IPv4 to
> IPv6 -- IPv6 is 10 years old and not yet widely deployed -- and
> because IPv4 addresses are running out faster than Internet users are
> able to roll out the preferred method of IPv4-to-IPv6 transition known
> as dual-stack operation, the Internet engineering community has come
> to the conclusion that it must create special NAT devices to translate
> between IPv4-only and IPv6-only hosts. 
> 
> "When the chips are down, NATs may be the only way we are going to get
> IPv6 added to the Internet," says Fred Baker, a Cisco Fellow who was
> chair of the IETF when IPv6 was designed. "If we have IPv4-only and
> IPv6-only networks, both of which we have now, NATs are the only way
> they will connect." 

	:


> IETF Chair Russ Housley says NATs are "necessary for a smooth
> transition from IPv4 to IPv6." 
> 
> Housley says most IETF participants are resigned to the fact that NATs
> are required to translate between IPv4 and IPv6 until all of the
> Internet's hosts and routers support IPv6. 
> 
> "The engineers and computer scientists that make up the IETF wish that
> the original plan had come to pass. But, of course, it didn't,"
> Housley says. "Given the current situation, the IETF participants are
> seeking a pragmatic solution, and there is rough consensus that this
> is the best way forward." 
> 
> Housley says the IETF needs to have a NAT-for-IPv6 specification ready
> for deployment in the next year or two. But he's holding out hope that
> someday NATs will be eliminated from the Internet. 
> 
> "The desire is for these NAT devices to be needed only during the
> transition period," Housley says. "That transition will certainly not
> be quick, but when it is over, the need for NAT should go away." 



> That limitation is good to know, and I am still absolutely looking
> forward to having my network be a "real" network.  I would love to be
> able to actually host all of my own network services, because I hate
> relying on others for that, and I'd rather have the only failure be my
> connection, not some random other person's server, etc., etc.
> 
> 	--- Mike

	Mike
-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20080811/34d44e59/attachment.bin