On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 at 19:24, John Osmon via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was rather surprised to find that the Ubiquiti Unifi box I bought to > play with allows NAT66/NPT -- it just warns that you lose hardware > acceleration. My testing shows that the CPU is sufficient for my > typical home traffic. > > As an aside: Today, there are a lot of software based routing > implementations that get close to parity with "big boy" router features. > If you have enough CPU interrupts to deal with your traffic volume, you > may not meed as many ASICs as you did in the past. I remember way back when, maybe decade or two ago, big IPv6 kooks like O et.al. saying how IPv6 will never get NAT much less NAPT. Even back then, there were several implementations. The biggest mistake of these well meaning IPv6 kooks are, that they wanted to force their opinions on what IP should be, when the actual problem at hand is simply 'not enough addresses'. Give people everything they do today, NAPT, DHCP (slaacless) etc. Just more addresses. It's fine, we can do it, there are absolutely no hard problems to solve. Just IPv4 + more addresses. https://weberblog.net/fortigate-enables-nat-for-ipv6-by-default-%f0%9f%a4%a6/ If I read this right, fortigate out of box does IPv6 NAPT. I've told for decades to every enterprise asking about IPv6, to do ULA (with lucky random of 0) and 1:1 NAT to provider addresses, never deploy any provider IP addresses. Either own PA or ULA+NAT. But even 1:1 NAT may be forcing people to do something they don't want to care about, and IPv6 NAPT as default may be the right choice. It's their edge, let them do what they want to do, no matter how wrong we think it is. We just need the addresses, so that we stop creating monopolies. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/4GPBH2O2LB3ANSGAO3LVCZLKKQNHOZTN/
