v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Mark Andrews Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Mon Feb 9 18:22:58 CST 2009


In message <4990C38C.8060007 at eeph.com>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
> > In terms of implementing the code, sure, the result is about the same,
> > but, the key point here is that there really isn't a benefit to having that
> > packet mangling code in IPv6.
> 
> Unless your SOX auditor requires it in order to give you a non-qualified 
> audit of your infrastructure.

	The SOX auditor ought to know better.  Any auditor that
	requires NAT is incompenent.
 
> The real problem with IPv6 deployment is not that it can't be done, but 
> that there are so many still-to-be-answered questions between here and 
> there...

	And the only way to answer them is to go ahead and find the
	gaps.  Waiting and waiting won't find the problems and will
	just put you under more time presure.

	Mark
 
> Matthew Kaufman
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org




More information about the NANOG mailing list