Hi,
On Jun 19, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
I think what we wanted to get rid of in IPv6 was one-to-many NAT,
also know as PAT (among other names). In IPv6, we can stick to one-
to-one NAT, which eliminates most of the nastiness we associate
with NAT in today's IPv4 world.
Really?
I thought the annoying bit about NAT was the fact that IP addresses
get encoded into higher layers, thus requiring ALG or deep packet
inspection. One-to-one NAT would solve the NAT'd server problem, but
I thought that was considered a feature by most networks.
Rgds,
-drc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
