[iigs]

I also strongly like NAT. In roughly descending order:

1) It fails safe. Virtually all device misconfigurations result in failure to pass traffic, rather than being passed accidentally.

2) You get full control of your external signature (at that protocol level). When Comcast and AT&T realize that they can charge for more than a single /128 on their consumer networks we'll see a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on /r/technology, and it will be completely inane to those of us that saw the same companies attempt the same BS with NAT detection in the late 90s.

3) I would like to be able to implement dual stack in networks that I'm responsible for with as much similarity as possible. Having to reason independently more than needed about how IPv4 and IPv6 behave is needless difficulty.

4) IPv6 allocations today are asininely large. We're going to have 30-45 years of overallocation and then be out again, and in the interim we'll have a whole host of new braindead protocols in the manner of FTP and VOIP. The collective lessons we've learned about NAT will have (for all intents and purposes) been lost and we'll get a bunch of new shoddy hacks for dealing with them (passive FTP and NAT-T).

5) If it's a useful tool, by the user's estimation, why can't I have it? The internet grew up on what amounted to "be a good peer and we can all get along", but on this specific topic it quickly dissolves into STOP LIKING THINGS I DONT LIKE, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT, I'M TELLING THE IETF.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> 1) It fails safe. Virtually all device misconfigurations result in failure to pass traffic, rather than being passed accidentally.

I don't see that, nor that it would even be an advantage.

> 2) You get full control of your external signature (at that protocol level). When Comcast and AT&T realize that they can charge for more than a single /128 on their consumer networks we'll see a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on /r/technology, and it will be completely inane to those of us that saw the same companies attempt the same BS with NAT detection in the late 90s.

How do you prevent people from coming up with stupid ideas by implementing some stupid ideas yourself? Is that a general rule you follow? Wherever companies could conceivably some day screw up some product, you do it for them now?

> 3) I would like to be able to implement dual stack in networks that I'm responsible for with as much similarity as possible. Having to reason independently more than needed about how IPv4 and IPv6 behave is needless difficulty.

So, you prefer to keep things broken forever if that means that things don't change?

> 4) IPv6 allocations today are asininely large. We're going to have 30-45 years of overallocation and then be out again,

What's your evidence for that? Seems like a completely baseless claim to me.

> and in the interim we'll have a whole host of new braindead protocols in the manner of FTP and VOIP.

So, NAT is good because protocols that don't work well with NAT are braindead because they don't work well with NAT?

I mean, I see your point if there is any risk that we might run out of addresses, but if we don't, what exactly is braindead about those protocols?

> 5) If it's a useful tool, by the user's estimation, why can't I have it?

You obviously _can_ have it. Just as you _can_ cut your head off if you think that's useful to you.

But all things considered, do the advantages actually outweigh the disadvantages.