Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (1837 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] Moving to IPv6
  • From: Per Jessen <per@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:08:38 +0200
  • Message-id: <i6domn$9fd$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Brian K. White wrote:

Per, I'm replying to your post but this isn't meant to sound directed
at you personally. Every instance of "you" below is figurative.

Hi Brian,

kind of makes it difficult to respond then. Please assume a "Personally
speaking" prefix on every response below:

If you don't believe your smb needs anything nat breaks, it just means
you don't understand what you're talking about.

I do I know what I'm talking about. I've been using NAT in my business
since 2004, and sofar NAT hasn't broken anything for me nor my
business. (that I know of, but I'm prepared to listen to suggestions).

Luckily, other people in key postions do and have seen to it that ipv6
got invented and then implemented in all the major hardware and
software by now. You think they did all that for the fun of it? You
think it maybe makes anyone a bunch of money? It costs everyone. MS
didn't sell more copies of Windows because they added ipv6. Cisco
didn't sell more routers because they added ipv6. They all knew there
was simply no choice. But somehow, for you, miraculously, it's not
necessary?

I've never said that. (I don't think I've heard anyone say it either).
IPv6 is certainly the way to go, but it doesn't always justify the
effort in and by itself.

What else that breaks things for everyone else but works for you don't
you care about? Does your car suck down gas at 6 miles per gallon? Are
your refrigerator and air conditioners and heaters all nice sturdy
reliable indestructible 1950's models that work great for you, while
burning enough power/fuel to run 3x as many modern units? How many
houses go cold to support yours because "it works for you"? Do you
smoke and talk on cell phones in restaurants? Do you park diagonally
across two parking spaces just so no one can park close enough to risk
scratching your car? Did you print a fake handicap tag so you can
always park right in front of every door? So convenient! I'm guessing
no to all of the above. No one here seems to be anything like that
sort of jerk at least about things they understand. Try to understand
that this is somewhat like that.

Okay, I can sort of see what you're aiming at, but I think you're
pointing your finger at the wrong culprit - NAT is omnipresent because
IPv6 didn't make it out there fast enough. Blame the hardware
manufacturers and the providers for that. NAT isn't going away anytime
soon, despite being broken, and again you can blame the manufacturers
and the providers. NAT solve[d|s] a real problem, and mass-culling it
is not possible.
The problem is that there is no hardcore business case for swapping out
the end users modem/router nor for deploying new IPv6-capable boxes at
an extra cost.
If somebody called up my neighbours and said "Guys, I've got a new
router for you, can I come round and swap it for your old one? At no
cost for you, of course", they'd have no problem with it.

By insisting on using NAT in situations where it's not actually
required you shoot yourself in the foot, because developers can not
then develop the cool new things that NAT makes impossible. Whole
classes of things are just impossible if it's known that lots of nat
is going on in general between any two machines. Sure there are places
where nat might still be useful, but THOSE situations are the exotic
contrived ones, not the other way around.

I can think of at least a million xDSL customers in Switzerland who are
most likely using NAT. It's very useful to them, hardly exotic nor
contrived. However, it is true that there are few, if any, places
where NAT is actually _required_. However, until consumer-level IPv6
hardware becomes affordable, we're stuck with NAT, and to millions of
people it works really well - despite being broken.

Now, to play along with your analogy from above, how about we take a
look at how difficult it is and has been to sell the idea of energy
conservation to people around the world and compare that to how
difficult it would be to sell them a new router at CHF500 because it
does IPv6 and that eliminates the need for NAT (which is really
broken).



--
Per Jessen, Zürich (19.9°C)

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread
Follow Ups