Hi, > On 26 Mar 2015, at 14:37, Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Roman Mamedov <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > NAT66 is not (and should not be) common, however there is no harm in doing an > inobtrusive check to see if it's deployed, or to collect stats on the scale of > such deployments. > > I am part of a team deploying IPv6 in S E Asia, for enterprises in their > offices. As we do not have clarity on who the ISP will be, and this will > change frequently till v6 availability stabilises, use of ULA is common. A > NAT66 device is used much a normal IPv4 NAT gateway; the NAT66 means that if > the upstream IPv6 prefix address changes, all the PCs do ot end up with new > addresses.
Technically, I think you mean NPTv6, as per RFC 6296. It’s disappointing but not unexpected that sites are doing this. The homenet approach is that hosts are multi-addressed with ULA and globals. They use ULAs internally, which provides a decent level of renumbering protection, and globals externally. Having a single IP address is IPv4 thinking. Tim
