RFC4864 - Local Network Protection for IPv6

Mon Jun 4 21:58:55 UTC 2007

For all you "NAT is soo secure I need to NAT" folks please take the
time and read the following RFC that the IETF has carefully put
together to address all those arguments.

URL: http://myietf.unfix.org/documents/rfc4864.txt

Abstract:
8<----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Although there are many perceived benefits to Network Address
   Translation (NAT), its primary benefit of "amplifying" available
   address space is not needed in IPv6.  In addition to NAT's many
   serious disadvantages, there is a perception that other benefits
   exist, such as a variety of management and security attributes that
   could be useful for an Internet Protocol site.  IPv6 was designed
   with the intention of making NAT unnecessary, and this document
   shows how Local Network Protection (LNP) using IPv6 can provide the
   same or more benefits without the need for address translation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------->8

Now, if you have a problem with that document and the way it solves
your problems, please raise them in the v6ops WG of the IETF so that
they know about them and can address your concerns.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070604/c02b64be/attachment.sig>