IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)

Thu Jun 21 02:47:24 UTC 2012

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dave Hart" <davehart at gmail.com>
>
>> Sure, there are folks out there who believe NAT gives them benefits.
>> Some are actually sane (small multihomers avoiding BGP). You stand
>> out as insane for attempting to redefine "transparent" to mean
>> "inbound communication is possible after negotatiation with multiple
>> levels of NAT".
>>
>> > However, it does not invalidate end to end NAT as a counter
>> > argument against people insisting on IPv6 so transparent with
>> > a lot of legacy NAT used by people who loves it.
>> >
>> > That is, end to end transparency can not be a reason to
>> > insist on IPv6.
>>
>> It certainly is, for those of us not arguing by redefinition.
>
> Ah, you're on the "I should be required to allow direct outside connection
> to my interior machines if I want to be connected to the Internet" crowd.

Not quite.  I'd go for "I should be able to permit direct outside
connection to my interior machines via stable IPv6 prefix, or it's not
really the Internet to me."  Packet filter to your heart's content.
1:1 NAT your clients if you believe breaking connectivity is in your
interest.

Cheers,
Dave Hart