Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

Fri Jul 23 04:35:30 UTC 2010

Keep selling them the NAT router, just don't tell them that it applies only
to IPv4 only and not to IPv6.  99.9% of consumers don't know about NAT, they
just want to plug it in and be connected.  That's why having a stateful
firewall as standard element of an IPv6-capable router specification would
keep SOHO IPv6 connectivity "on par" with IPv4.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Akyol, Bora A [mailto:bora at pnl.gov] 
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:54 PM
To: Owen DeLong; matthew at matthew.at
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

As long as customers believe that having a NAT router/"firewall" in place is
a security feature,
I don't think anyone is going to get rid of the NAT box.

In all reality, NAT boxes do work for 99% of customers out there.

Bora

On 7/22/10 7:34 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

Well, wouldn't it be better if the provider simply issued enough space to
make NAT66 unnecessary?

Owen