The SMB use case is absolutely PAT. They aren’t going to 1:1 NAT all of their internal hosts to both providers provided IPv6 space.
> On Jun 19, 2026, at 1:16 PM, Gary Sparkes via NANOG <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The cybercafe? Faster and more reliable online gaming. Better VOIP services > for communication. > > Gaming is something that *HUGELY* benefits from IPv6/NAT elimination. > > The SMB? More reliable/consistent SIP experience for their phones. Cheaper > network hardware for the same throughput. Reduced complexity. Reduced costs > (address space) if they're exposing anything externally / need external > inbound access. (All wins I've gained for my customers, and yes, they're all > either dual stack or v6 with edge translation for some networks, but with > reduced expenses overall and more reliable/performant networks) > > Realistically, the only NAT that v6 should ever need is NPTv6 for the > multihoming scenario (IEEE should just capitulate on that one, it just makes > sense and it's not PAT that gives us all our problems in the first place), > the rest just don't make sense and re-introduce complexity and issues that > should be eliminated. > > IPv6 enabled me to rip out a LOT of NAT workaround code from systems I > support, which greatly simplified a lot of things. Re-introducing PAT into V6 > land as a common practice would, once again, require re-adding all those > insane hacks and workarounds and decreasing reliability. > > We shouldn't need to solve those issues when we can eliminate them entirely. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pedro Prado via NANOG <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2026 1:01 PM > To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> > Cc: Marco Moock <[email protected]>; Pedro Prado <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: IPv4 flag day > > … 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/AZ >> FJS4DBXNUQQWO2ON2VGB7H2JKLBJTL/ > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/JRCXLXRPKM2ELJPJFD4IBACOEOQ7LKMW/ > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/VOWZ3ODV43BY423LQ3RKNLHEIYLYBIBL/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/4CP4YTRYRYSVMIM746F6ZZLGNF6SQDPI/
