[LINK] www.ipv6.org.au/summit

Jon Seymour jon.seymour at gmail.com
Sun Aug 31 16:00:12 AEST 2008


On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au> wrote:

>
> Perhaps my point would be better stated as "NAT provides no security
> benefit that cannot be obtained from a simple packet filter".


Agreed. I also agree that pushing NATs towards the core is absolutely the
wrong thing to be doing, but I think there is probably a certain economic
inevitability in it unless Governments get serious about providing the right
incentives to enable adoption of IPv6.

My own preference would be a establish a tax on the use of IPv4 address
space which would provide an incentive for people to start using IPv6. What
we absolutely don't want to do is to create a market for IPv4 address space.
Creating a market for IPv4 address space would create forces with powerful
vested interests in the failure of IPv6 [ because adoption of IPv6 would
devalue the IPv4 address market, were such a thing to exist ].

Unfortunately, I have no faith that this Government is enlightened enough to
set up the right incentives. If anything they are more likely to welcome the
possibilities of more centralized control of the net that
NAT-towards-the-core offers.

jon.



More information about the Link mailing list