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

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 6, 2015, at 02:15 , Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 06/11/2015 07:26, Gert Doering wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:31:02AM +0000, Howard, Lee wrote:
>>> Proposed text:
>>> ... it does have significant implications to applications, as documented
>>> in [RFC6296] Section 5, which may  cause some applications to break.
>>> 
>>> Thus this document does not recommend the use of ULA+NPTv6.
>> 
>> This I can perfectly agree to - it's a different message ("understand 
>> well what you do if you insist on going there"), and clear enough.
> 
> this is verging on "delenda est carthago" territory.

Given the persistent and pestilent nature of NAT externalizing costs onto other parties not choosing to use it, I think that is a perfectly valid approach at this time.

Let us now go forth and destroy Carthage (remove NAT from the public internet) as to eliminate this problem from our collective future.

If you want to use NAT in whatever form on your own network in a manner that does not externalize costs to software vendors, other providers, or pollute the internet with false identifiers, then by all means, do as you wish.

If your use of NAT does not fall within those limitations, then, indeed, it should be destroyed.

Owen