Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

Tue Oct 2 15:57:00 UTC 2007

On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>
> If you think anyone will be deploying v6 without a stateful firewall,
> you're
> delusional.  That battle is long over.  The best we can hope for is that
> those personal firewalls won't do NAT as well.
>
>
Vendor C claims to support v6 (without NAT) in their "enterprise class"
stateful firewall appliance as of OS version 7.2 (or thereabouts, perhaps
7.0).  I've not tried it out yet to see how well it works.

But, as far as the home/home office goes -- will my cable/dsl provider be
able (willing?) to route a small v6 prefix to my home so that I can use a
bitty-box stateful v6 firewall without NAT?  What will be the cost to me,
the home subscriber, to get said routable prefix?  I am sure it increases
the operator's expense to route a prefix to most (if not every) broadband
subscriber in an area.

In the beginning, cable operators were reluctant to support home customers
using NAT routers to share their access.  Now, renting/selling NAT routers
to customers has become a revenue stream for some.

How does lack of v6 NAT affect all of this?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20071002/984e111c/attachment.html>