using "reserved" IPv6 space

Mon Jul 16 17:28:26 UTC 2012

"""
Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is
being able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address
conservation. It has no good use in IPv6.
"""

NAT still has its uses; virtualization and cloud infrastructure being
one of the most legitimate.

Certain kinds of NAT, such as RFC 6296, are very useful, and one of
the best methods we have today of delivering IPv6 to smaller networks
who wish to have private address space internally ... be it for
consistency, ISP independence, multi-homing, or just downright
operational parity.

I really think all this focus on anti-NAT talk has held-back adoption
(and FWIW I used to be one of the people banging the anti-NAT drum the
loudest).

Keep in mind the collective attitude in communities like this one
about NAT for v6 trickles down into decisions made elsewhere; the
Linux Netfilter team, for example, is met by a lot of hostility when
they talk about including things like 6296 in ip6tables; and as a
result it's been left out (even though it's functional).

-- 
Ray Soucy

Epic Communications Specialist

Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526

Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
http://www.networkmaine.net/