I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as "false security"
IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would argue it's more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get into ;) -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases 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. >
