Hi Thorsten and list,
Thorsten Trottier <[email protected]> writes:
> I’m not a friend of NAT as well, but demonize NAT for any actions is a kind
> of overdo, isn’t it.
> We are living with NAT a long time now for better or for worse.
first off: NAT and NAT64 are two rather different concepts. NAT
translates addresses and ports, but NAT64 translates between
address/protocol families.
> A customer of mine (enterprise customer with hundreds of sites and
> thousands of employees) has setup his IPv6 project more than 4 years
> ago and plans to be finished 2020. [...]
That's a different scenario than the one Christian talked about, which
was more centered around an AD setup.
But anyways: Why didn't you do the updates and made the servers
dual-stacked? If they are too old to support IPv6, then at least from
my experience they are in dire need of an update---or usually a
replacement---anyway.
I understand that using the NAT64 setup buys you some time at least on
some accounts, but from my experience there is pretty much always some
sort of stuff that doesn't work with NAT64 at least in enterprise
environments. And actually finding these things beforehand is quite
some job, so I'd generally consider this move something of a desperate
gamble: Don't properly test because you *really* need a quick kludge,
and hope no major functionalities get affected.
Cheers,
Benedikt
PS: \begin{ObNATBashing}
Anyone who thinks that NAT is no problem should be forced to
implement STUN on any low end SIP phone first and made to deal with
the legal fallout whenever an emergency call didn't work due to STUN
problems second.
\end{ObNATBashing}
--
Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting
Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/
Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects
BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/
