On 7/3/25 07:59, Ondřej Caletka wrote:
On 07/03/2025 11:30, Fernando Gont wrote:
In a lot of scenarios -- despite rather religious claims against that
direction -- you may solve the problem as suggested doing NAT for
IPv6. (particularly if this is one of the many problems you have on
your table to solve, as is the case for many organizations)).
I think it is also worth mentioning that this is by no means a problem
with IPv6. Solving the same issue on IPv4 would be exactly as complex as
any solution on IPv6.
The only difference is that on IPv4 we generally don't care about
end-to-end principle, while in IPv6 we try to preserve it as much as
possible. Which is probably a good thing, but if this prevent us from
deploying IPv6, then I would say it is still better to have some
reachability to IPv6-only resources, be it via a proxy server (these
ancient protocols still exist!) or some sort of NAT than to have no IPv6
reachability at all.
Agreed on that.
One of the interesting bits is that in IPv4, NATs have been embraced as
a solution to the problem at hand. Whereas in the IPv6 world NATs are
generally demonized, while we don't bite the bullet to address the
problem at hand (without employing NATs or the like).
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email protected]
PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ipv6-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
