RE: ReN: IPv6 tranisition issues

Hi,
I have been following this discusson on NAT since it started, though i have
not contributed in any way.
But at this point of time i would like to point out that our company has
been using NAT for 5-6 years now and we have not encountered any problems
(as far as breakage of applications) is concerned. Could you please give me
some examples of the applications that are broken by the usage of NAT?

regards
Anand Thakur
HCL Perot Systems (A SEI CMM Level 5 Company)
Plot No 3, Sector 125, NOIDA (UP)-201301, India
* Tel  +91 120 4432755-79, X3348 (EPABX)
mobile:9811748512

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Michael R. Cole [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent:	Tuesday, December 31, 2002 4:50 PM
> To:	[email protected]
> Subject:	Re: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Moore" <[email protected]>
> To: "Michael R. Cole" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 12:28 AM
> Subject: Re: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues
> 
> 
> > >  A NAT box is just simply
> > > a retooled router,
> >
> > that's a truly bizarre statement.  I suppose it's true from a
> > hardware perspective, but it's like saying that a NAT box is
> > just a retooled computer with a couple of network interfaces -
> > true, but irrelevant to the question at hand.
> >
> > > just that some are better and some are worse.
> >
> > all NATs break applications.  some NATs know about a few more
> > protocols than others, but no NAT can handle every possible protocol,
> > many protocols simply cannot be made to work transparently through NAT.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> 
> Your definition of the word break must be different than the one in the
> dictionary. If an application works with a NAT box, then it is NOT BROKEN!
> Your claim would also say that a timesharing system with only 1 public
> IPv4
> address would not work which is what a cone NAT mimics. That is, a cone
> NAT
> fools that public Internet into thinking that a LAN or other subnet is in
> actuality a single machine. At any rate, a NAT box is a patch that gets
> around the problem that a good sized chunk of the IPv4 address space was
> wastefully allocated to the original players at essentially zero cost.
> 
> Maybe your first experience with a NAT box was with a really crummy one?
> If
> that is your only experience or of you have no experience with NAT boxes,
> then you have no business crticizing them. Some NAT software that I have
> tried was absolutely horrible.
> 
> I am not trying to say that the better NAT boxes will work with ALL
> applications. Somehow, the cable companies are able to use them at their
> headends without breaking applications. However, I have noticed that
> enterprise-class NAT boxes use a server-client setup so that applications
> are not really aware or can tell that they are indirectly connected to the
> Internet. Symmetric NAT boxes probably do work better in part because they
> mimic a timesharing system with one public IPv4 address for each user.
> 
> Of course, some applications are very picky about what they will eat.
> 
> MIke Cole, [email protected]
> 
>