[address-policy-wg] Mandating NAT toward the final /8

Sander Steffann wrote:

> Hello Masataka,

Hello. To summarize the discussion, my points are:

	IPv6 will not be deployed soon

	NAT is inevitable

	NAT can be harmless

and I have seen no counter argument for the first two points.

> The document you sent to this list is only a draft.

For IPv6 deployment, there are abandoned RFCs, which means being
an RFC does not mean anything, and new drafts with NAT are coming,
some of which needs changes in hosts.

> The chances of  
> getting end to end NAT globally deployed before the IPv4 address space  
> runs out are very close to zero,

That's not my proposal, I just say "Mandating NAT", including legacy
NAT, though those who want to make NAT end to end transparent may use
end to end NAT or similar technologies.

I heard that UPnP is supporting transparent TCP (only TCP), which
seems to be, as transparent as end to end NAT, of course with host
modifications.

Instead, your statement mean

> The chances of  
> getting IPv6 globally deployed before the IPv4 address space  
> runs out are very close to zero,

or, considering technical quality of IPv6 specification, exactly
zero, which means we must use IPv4 NAT.

My proposal gives a way to make NAT harmless.

> Also remember that we make policy for all uses of IP  
> addresses, not just end user networks that have/get/need a limited  
> amount of public addresses. These policies also apply to datacenters  
> where servers are hosted. There are many examples where you can not  put 
> those servers behind a NAT box. Mandating NAT in the way you have  
> stated in your messages is therefore not possible.

What's the rational for data centers not to reduce amount of IP
address consumption by not accepting virtual servers when IPv4
address is becoming scares and IPv6 is not ready?

> We are not going to change address policy in the whole RIPE region  
> because of a draft document that only covers a part of what addresses  
> are used for.

See above on the consequence of your reasoning that IPv6 will not
be deployed soon and NAT is inevitable, which, so far, has nothing
to do with my draft.

							Masataka Ohta