On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 10:47 AM sronan--- via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
SMB generally buys a box and whatever that box does by default, that's their network configuration. They pick that box mainly by reputation. They don't have a network security guy. They don't have a network guy. They have a couple IT guys whose main areas of expertise are troubleshooting PC hardware and Windows Domain Controllers. Enterprise, on the other hand, is definitely going NAT. Renumbering is painful even with IPv6. And they're very leery of 1:1 NAT -- they've made security configuration mistakes before and trust 1:many NAT to offer a layer of protection while those mistakes are detected and fixed. They take arguments against NAT to mean that IPv6 is not yet ripe for deployment with the sort of robust security frameworks they enjoy in IPv4. Regards, Bill Herrin -- For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/NXMXULZ3J3GTYQHXZTWPQKFNCUUYZSFV/
