Steven, >> I'd really like us to avoid that. it is going to be so hard to get NPT out >> of the network again. >> it also forces applications to continue with STUN/TURN and all that stuff to >> discover global addresses >> that can be used for referrals. please let us keep the end to end properties >> of IPv6 intact. > > Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you from a technical and ideological > standpoint. However I don't think it would be wise - at least as an OpenWrt > developer - to force any of this ideology onto users. IPv6 NAT made it into > the Linux kernel so I guess there are some legitimate use-cases, so at least > I don't want to be the guy assuming I know better then the people who > implemented, requested and accepted these features. > > I'd rather have it implemented and more or less supported in the most sane > way possible then people hacking it in on their own. > > However as I said I feel the need to have reasonable defaults and make it > easy (easier?) to use the standards-compliant way than to use NAT. Thats > where I can be reasoned with ;)
oh absolutely. there is a need for IPv6 NAT. particularly around multihoming to non-congruent networks, even in the home. (this would of course be a lot prettier with ILNP, IPv6 NATs, better looking cousin.) I'm only arguing against having IPv6 NAT as the default solution. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
