jbates at brightok.net
Tue Feb 1 17:13:49 CST 2011
On 2/1/2011 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> As such, taking it away when giving you a large enough address space that there is no longer a shortage doesn't
> strike me as taking away a tool that solves a problem. It strikes me as giving you a vastly superior tool that solves
> rather than working around a problem.
Interestingly enough, there is a draft for NAT66, specifically NPTv6,
but no draft for NAPTv6. So someone though it was okay to start allowing
some NAT66, but everyone's still trying to fight NAPTv6, as businesses
might use it. Oh noes.
The other concern was perhaps home routers, but let's be honest. There
is a v6-cpe-router draft, and it easily could forbid the use of NAPTv6.
It's already missing most of the stuff required to make home networks
work in v6 the same way they do in v4 (prefix delegation added new
problems that NAT didn't have, which they still haven't solved).
More information about the NANOG