> On Mar 2, 2015, at 1:59 PM 3/2/15, Juliusz Chroboczek > <j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: > >>> If we carry NAT over to IPV6, then shame on us. > >> I am sorry, I no longer share this opinion [...] The next version of >> cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6 address range to >> a static internal one (or ones, in the case of multiple egress >> gateways),
Are you at least following NPTv6, RFC 6296? > > (Insert strong expression of disagreement here. Use any means available > to convince Dave otherwise, including flattery, threats, demagoguery, ad > hominem attacks and photographs of cute animals.) Photographs of threats to cute animals? "Don't code IPv6 address translation or the kitten gets it!" > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
