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

Sat Oct 13 20:49:00 UTC 2007

On 4-okt-2007, at 14:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> I would be interested to know how many people favor each of the  
> following approaches. Feel free to send me private email and I'll  
> summerize.

I only got three replies, which don't really support drawing many  
conclusions.

> 1. Keep NAT and ALGs out of IPv6 and use additional protocols  
> between hosts and firewalls to open "pinholes" in firewalls (where  
> appropriate/allowed, such as in consumer installations) to avoid ALGs

+ +

> 2. Keep NAT out of IPv6 but use ALGs to bypass firewalls

_

> 3. Come up with a standard way of doing 1-to-1 NAT (no PAT) in IPv6

> 4. Come up with a standard way of doing NAT/PAT in IPv6

+

> 5. Everyone do whatever suits their needs like what happened in IPv4

-

Interestingly, nobody seems to like option 3.

> And: if people start using NAT in IPv6 I will:

> a. Implement ALGs and application workarounds to accommodate it

"don't want to but we'll have to if it comes to this" x 2
unqualified x 1

> b. Not do anything, it's their problem if stuff breaks

"would prefer this if it were up to me" x 1

> c. Break stuff that goes through IPv6 NAT on purpose to prove a point

-