Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

[daveb <[e-mail]>]

At 11:37 AM 4/6/2022, Chris Cummings wrote:
> >For those who disagree, can you give up your 
> globally unique E.164 phone number on your mobile phone to see how that goes?
>
>I know that you called out mobile phones 
>specifically, but since we're talking mainly 
>about enterprises, I think that a PBX is perhaps 
>a more appropriate comparison. Businesses have 
>been running PBXs with private extensions for 
>their phone numbers for decades, and it is a 
>well-established pattern. It's actually almost a 
>perfect analog in my mind for NAT/PAT. I, of 
>course, don't like NAT and love end-to-end 
>connectivity, however, to Nick's points here, 
>lack of end-to-end connectivity is a very 
>well-established pattern for most enterprises, 
>just like private extensions on a PBX.Â


But you can still reach me directly by dialing 
[phone] x137. Although I guess that would be 
similar to NAT + Port Forwarding. Perhaps it's 
best to accept the perceived benefits of NAT 
(NAT66) to get the ball rolling and then maybe it 
becomes easier for them to see the value of full 
end-to-end connectivity, and a fairly easy 
transition to remove NAT66 to some/all portions of the enterprise network?

Dave B. (Small ISP that would love to see more enterprise customers take IPv6)