IPv6 NATs break the end-to-end principle, just like their IPv4 counterparts. Renumbering, whether in IPv4 or IPv6 has a cost, which can be quite high for companies. This effectively dissuades companies from switching ISPs too often. And guess who are the most active contributors to the RIR’s policies ? The argument that we should preserve the global routing table from growing is actually used as a customer lock-in method. If you are serious about your Internet- based business, you need multihoming anyway. Hence, PI space is a prerequisite.

Go6/Freenet6 are but one way of doing it. I personally use Miredo, a Teredo-based client for the Mac with a simple and effective GUI. There is also Sixxs , Hurricane Electric and others.

on 3) this is why I don’t like the policies in many RIR that tells companies to get their IPv6 from their ISP. If they are assigned IPv6 address they can change ISPs without having to renumber the whole network. IANA is creating this problem, not IPv6.

Patrick,
Just discovered recently http://www.go6.net, works well. Wherever you are in the world you can put your computer on the IPv6 backbone via a tunnel. I think we can get out of the chicken-egg situation with IPv6 that way.

Even if NATs aren’t a feature of an IPv6 Internet (something I doubt as long as IPv6 uses provider-based aggregatability to scale the routing system), a likely reaction to zombies would be to filter the /48 or /64 prefix the zombie is using. As a result, you get the same collateral damage.

Two: In a hostile networking environment, never ever trust the local network and fire up your ssh or IPsec tunnel to a machine you can trust.

There are non-hostile networking environments? I can’t remember the last time I trusted someone else’s SMTP server.

Three: give us IPv6 as soon as possible to get rid of NATs

NAT performs two functions: it increases effective address space and it hides local routing information (e.g., you can change providers without renumbering your entire site). IPv6 addresses the first function NAT performs. IPv6 does not address the second function sufficiently to remove the desirability of NAT. As a result, the existence of IPv6 will not cause NAT to go away.

Regards,
-drc

As mentioned by the IETF chair in the article you are referring to, this should be a transitional measure. My main concern is corporate resistance to changes. I met too many CIOs who consider NATs are a security tool. Also, if IPv6 NATs demonstrate they work with little side effects, I do not see many corporations turning them off when the whole Internet will be on IPv6. What is supposed to be a band aid to ease the IPv4 to IPv6 transition may ultimately be with us for a very long time.

I just hope it will not happen.

We may have a numbering problem to address but I don’t see any evidence that NATs will disappear in the process as some sort of desirable side effect. You will have to change the basis of corporate network architecture before that happens and there is no compelling reason to do so with or without IPv6.

Check this reference –

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072108-ipv6nat.html?netht=ts_072108&nladname=072108dailynewsamal