Operational challenges of no NAT
john at sackheads.org
Sat Oct 30 16:12:59 CEST 2010
On Oct 30, 2010, at 12:02 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 5:27 PM, John Payne wrote:
>> Wrong. You are just so hot to shoot down anyone even thinking that NAT has uses that you dont appear to be listening to use cases. 1:1 NAT66 is exactly what I want and what I've seen others ask for.
> Indeed. n:1 NAT for IPv6 doesn't make a whole lot of sense (except possibly for topology hiding, but there are far better ways of doing that in IPv6). In fact, according to a recent presentation by Fernando Gont at LACNOG, "NAT66 is one of the most frequently-asked IPv6 features." (see http://www.gont.com.ar/talks/lacnog2010/fgont-lacnog2010-ipv6-security.pdf, slide 13) Given this, I suspect you won't have to wait long.
> However you're arguing with a "True Believer" who makes rather rash assumptions with limited data -- there are probably better ways of spending your time. I've already added him to my "delete unread" filter...
More information about the ipv6-ops