[ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar (was: Re: IPv6 only as default for next meeting)

Hi folks,

this is admittedly a pet peeve of mine, so apologies right in advance
to anybody getting offended by this, but I'd like to rephrase 

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca> writes:

> I think the technology (v6only-nat64-dns64) is mature enough. The
> problem is that various applications and services are not compatible
> with it (usually IPv4 addresses negotiated in the payload)

as this: 

    I think the technology (v6only-nat64-dns64) is inherently broken by
    design.  By design it doesn't support a range of important and
    widely used existing applications and services that it should be
    compatible with to be considered "working".

With NAT, NAT64 or whatever other application unaware translation hack
being around, a lot of extra complexity is pushed towards the
application layer.  NAT* doesn't solve any problems, it just puts the
burden on others who is unlikely in a situation to defend themselves
(the app. developers) ; the overall effect is counterproductive.

Aside from that, once we talk not full-blown computers but embedded
devices, adding support for NAT penetration (STUN or whatever) is a
major problem.  The original Arduino uses a microcontroller with 32KB
of flash (for program code) and 2KB of RAM, and that's already a fairly
big one.  Adding STUN support there is a serious problem.


Again, this isn't meant as a flame or anything, but to show that
these technologies have serious implications for others.


Cheers,

    Benedikt

-- 
Benedikt Stockebrand,                   Stepladder IT Training+Consulting
Dipl.-Inform.                           http://www.stepladder-it.com/

          Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects

BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/