IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)
Jay Ashworth
jra at baylink.com
Wed Jun 20 23:05:22 UTC 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Hart" <davehart at gmail.com>
> Sure, there are folks out there who believe NAT gives them benefits.
> Some are actually sane (small multihomers avoiding BGP). You stand
> out as insane for attempting to redefine "transparent" to mean
> "inbound communication is possible after negotatiation with multiple
> levels of NAT".
>
> > However, it does not invalidate end to end NAT as a counter
> > argument against people insisting on IPv6 so transparent with
> > a lot of legacy NAT used by people who loves it.
> >
> > That is, end to end transparency can not be a reason to
> > insist on IPv6.
>
> It certainly is, for those of us not arguing by redefinition.
Ah, you're on the "I should be required to allow direct outside connection
to my interior machines if I want to be connected to the Internet" crowd.
Got it.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
More information about the NANOG
mailing list