"Fanboy" series - IPv6 and NATs

Like any joke - it may have some grain of truth in it. Or it may not.

The time will show.

• Category

  Film & Animation

[Andrew Yourtchenko]

@foobarbuzz you seem to extrapolate your own situation on the whole world. Let's just finish it at this: there are various reasons, for some they may be valid, for some they may be not relevant. I'm seriously not willing to preach the IPv6 religion - but rather the pragmatic approach.

And I assert that in some scenarios IPv6 makes sense. In other scenarios, it does not make the sense right now.

Let's accept there is more than one answer. The world's more complex than we'd like it to be.

[Andrew Yourtchenko]

@securezone

Address changes are much less frequent (normally) than TCP/UDP port changes.

Anyway, the circumstances are always different - and I don't think it's worth our time to try to argue either end as The Only Right one. So I think we can agree to disagree on some things.

[Andrew Yourtchenko]

@securezone

- addressing: if you get to design the network. Think M&A.

- NAT scalable: think logging. Talk to your friendly SP with a few million subscribers.

As for NAT-compatible apps: sure. The root of the problem is the locator/id overloading for address. But this is even more holy matter than the NAT thing, I feel :)

[Andrew Yourtchenko]

@securezone: I do not attempt to take sides in this scenario. As I write in the description - the time will show.

As for your comment overall: I agree with every odd statement in it.

[dt9394]

Nat is not security, i use forward chain for filtering. :)

[Andrew Yourtchenko]

absolutely :-)

[senselesswtf]

They could easily utilize IPv6 internally with IPv6 to IPv4 translation to provide IPv4 connectivity over their IPv6 network. We should all call on IANA to revoke the IPv4 addresses of wireless carriers.

[senselesswtf]

What pisses me off most about IPv6 is that it's essentially designed for billions of mobile devices. But instead of using IPv6, mobile network carriers are utilizing assigned but non-utilized /8 blocks such as 25.0.0.0/8 for internal IPv4 NAT. What the fuck? I'm spending hours converting my applications over to utilize IPv6 and the people it's designed for aren't even fucking using it? Are you kidding me?

[MsMikewoo]

NATs are great.

[TheOriginal FatDonkey]

wow omfg!

[apoc4223]

natsgood? weird video should publish the transscript

[Fred Bovy]

I will buy IPv6 if it has NAT, NAT is GOOD ! :-))))

[securezone]

I still have the same IPv4 for 18 days and it is likely to not change anytime soon.

Logging is not the challenge. In fact, even IPv6 will have very similar logging load because IPv6 will is still dynamically leased (due to easier management with dynamic leasing).

Logging was/is never a "sane" reason to switch to IPv6. This is bullshit.

You can ignore history (bullshit in the past decade), but the future will show you that something is badly fucked up.

[securezone]

that's not really heavy if you have sane translation timeouts. It doesn't happen frequently.

Plus, if a SP has millions of subscribers, then the actual "load" is not the NAT logs, but rather the bandwidth.

Trust me, you will hit other bottlenicks before you hit the loggin thing.

Plus, IPv6 also does the logging whenever a customer is assigned an IP address via (say) PPP/DHCP. They also do logging whenever a customer is Up/Down.