Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[Gert Doering <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 07:14:09AM +1100, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Widen your mind :-) - and indeed, I am making this case.  Multiple
> > different scenarios where NAT is making life much easier (or enabling
> > a solution at all that might not be otherwise possible).
> 
> Are people who use it "successfully" aware of the limitations it imposes
> i.e. those described in RFC2993?

Yes.  The most important limitation in these cases is "make sure your
documentation is precise".

I said before that *imposing* NAT on people is bad, but taking away
tools is also bad.  And as such, I oppose the statement that there
would be IETF consensus on "NAT is bad".

In almost all cases, alternative approaches could be used (like, in
the loadbalancing case, use a reverse proxy, add extra http headers
so the real server can know the real client IP, etc) - but in many
cases, these are more expensive or require cooperation by other parties
that have no interest.  Tool.  Useful.  By conscenting adults.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279