On Friday, May 27, 2011 09:46:45 PM Brian Roche wrote: > Thanks for the thorough analysis. I share your concerns > about NAT, have managed to limit its use to residential > cable modems, and plan to completely remove it as part > of our *eventual* IPv6 migrations/FTTH strategy.
<digress> Well, as strange as it may sound, IPv6 won't take away your NAT woes in the short-to-medium term. Because your IPv6-only customers (those that sign-up to your network after you've exhausted your last IPv4 address) will still need to communicate with IPv4-only resources on the Internet (those networks that still think IPv6 is a waste of time), you're probably going to need to do some kind of NAT for this. All NAT is evil, but I think NAT64 is less evil because you're not using private IPv4 or private IPv6 addresses (you can, but shouldn't). NAT64 will also make your final migration to native/non-NAT'ed IPv6 easier than if you did NAT44 or NAT444. </digress> Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
