Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (769 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] DHCPv6-PD request
On 05/24/2016 09:40 PM, James Knott wrote:
Please don't confuse private addresses with NAT. The idea of private
addresses existed long before NAT.

Yes, that's my point.

NAT is an emergent proprty of private addresses.

A private address is just that, it
doesn't connect to anything.

Ahm, that's not how I would phrase it and its not how RFV1918 phrases it.

The term they use, that I use, as in my previous post, is "non routable".

That is not the same an "unable to connect"

I went on to discuss gateways and translates.

A NAT is a gateway and translator.

NAT then took advantage of those address
blocks. Private addresses are not the problem (there are some with IPv6
too), NAT is.

NAT could not happen without private addresses.

If you want to think of the translators and gateways that converted the
non-routable "private "non IPv4" addresses of a IPX/Novell LAN to the
wider Internet, then they do just what Joe Sixpack sees his NAT Linksys
router from Best buy doing.
Using the IP protocol on both sides of the gateway/translator just makes
its implementation simpler, as Mike Padlipsky pointed out.

As for aggregation and routing, yes, if we were still limited to RIP and
a CIDR model, as you say, the horse-trading of IPv4 blocks would lead to
a explosion of routing tables. But that 'explosion' happened last
century and there was a solution to it even back then.

Its an issue implementing the exterior routing Algorithm based on set
theory rather hand sticking with the hierarchical CIDR model.

I'm not saying that IPv6 is not the "Right Thing To Do". If we'd had
more insight into what the future holds we'd have done it that way to
start with. But it was about solving the problem at hand. Engineering
is like that. If the people at BBN had tried selling their ideas based
on the way we view the Internet now they'd have been dismissed as blue
sky dreamers and noting would have been done.

But slagging off what was, and still is for many, a perfectly viable
engineering compromise (and all of engineering is a compromise as we'll
find out when we try doing the IoT and start realising that the energy
requirements are!) is a sign of intolerance, and there's a lot of
intolerance getting people hurt (and killed). We'll get to IPv6 in time.
There's no reason to be nasty about it.

I mentioned Disraeli and the "When change is necessary, change is
necessary". For many Internet users the change is not yet necessary.
Forcing it on others because it *IS* inarguably necessary for some is
not going to endear you. Telling people all their kit is obsolete and
the *HAVE* to buy new, often when its not in their budget.cycle or when
they've just bought other, is not going to endear you.

There are good economic reasons we have so much NAT around.

I'm not your enemy/opponent in this, James. I'm just saying there is a
good reason why people are hanging on to IPv4 and NAT despite the
validity of all you say. calling them fools or idiots or short-sighted
doesn't help. It just alienates them.

Think Yoga, relax, let it happen. Let it happen of its own nature.

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread
Follow Ups