Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

Karl Auer kauer at
Sat Dec 12 05:29:43 CST 2009

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 21:45 -0800, Roger Marquis wrote:
> If you're going to implement
> statefulness there is no technical downside to implementing NAT as well.
> No downside, plenty of upsides, no brainer...

Of course there are downsides to implementing NAT - adding any feature
to a device increases its complexity and affects its expense, time to
market, MTBF etc. And there is certainly a downside to *deploying* NAT:
NAT removes end-to-end transparency.

Gotta keep those SOHO users in their cages, don't want them becoming
independent producers of digital value, no sir!

Seriously - by all means keep NAT as a technology for those who want to
deploy it; we can't uninvent it anyway. It just shouldn't be imposed on

I would argue that an ISP requiring of a customer that they use a NATted
solution with IPv6 *is* imposing it on others.

Regards, K.

Karl Auer (kauer at                   +61-2-64957160 (h)                  +61-428-957160 (mob)

GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list