using "reserved" IPv6 space
valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu
valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu
Mon Jul 16 16:34:48 UTC 2012
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:09:28 -0500, -Hammer- said:
> -------That is clearly a matter of opinion. NAT64 and NAT66 wouldn't be there
> if there weren't enough customers asking for it. Are all the customers naive?
> I doubt it. They have their reasons. I agree with your "purist" definition and
> did not say I was using it. My point is that vendors are still rolling out base
> line features even today.
Sorry to tell you this, but the customers *are* naive and asking for stupid
stuff. They think they need NAT under IPv6 because they suffered with it in
IPv4 due to addressing issues or a (totally percieved) security benefit (said
benefit being *entirely* based on the fact that once you get NAT working, you
can build a stateful firewall for essentially free). The address crunch is
gone, and stateful firewalls exist, so there's no *real* reason to keep
pounding your head against the wall other than "we've been doing it for 15
years".
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 865 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120716/d3c33dee/attachment.sig>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list