What's the argument? Are you suggesting that NAT is in any way secure?
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Glen Waldrop <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public. > > That is my primary argument with IPv6. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases > > > > >> You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars. >> >> And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first >> 64 to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers. >> Assuming routers exist that would do this. >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Matt >> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases >> >> Just saying that NAT is not needed. Every single IP gives you so much >>> address space that you will never be able to use it. >>> >>> Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with >>> every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet right >>> now. >>> >> >> You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most >> respects does. A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP. >> >> >
