… which sounds right (not implementing something you don’t need). “Need” has a different interpretation for those inside a simple network and those interconnecting that network to everything else - a separation of values that Nat and even pat happens to handle pretty well IMHO, for the most part anyway, bar the well known issues.
What value the granularity of addresses inside a SMB brings to the outside if the connectivity works without that? What does global-capable 128-bit addressing help a cyber cafe? I would hope that the research that goes into solving NAT/PAT issues would trickle into improvements to the end to end upper protocols which would eventually be unaware of how the network operates, similar to how L2 is transparent today (bar MTU mismatches…) *Pedro Martins Prado* [email protected] / +353 83 036 1875 (FaceTime & WhatsApp) On Fri 19 Jun 2026 at 15:33, Marco Moock via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 19.06.26 um 08:35 schrieb Arie Vayner: > > To move IPv6 to the next level of SMB/enterprise adoption we need to make > > it easier to consume by the average SMB - which means stop saying "NAT is > > evil" or "NAT is not supported in IPv6", and unblock relevant IETF work. > > There are devices for SMB that support stateful IPv6 NAT if they really > need this. Although, my experience is that most of the network > infrastructure in SMB environments is created one time and never touched > unless necessary. They will also not implement IPv6 with NAT unless they > really need it. Same applies to various other protocols. > > -- > Gruß > Marco > > Junk-Mail bitte an [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/AZFJS4DBXNUQQWO2ON2VGB7H2JKLBJTL/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/JRCXLXRPKM2ELJPJFD4IBACOEOQ7LKMW/
