In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:55:51AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt > > That contains most of the answers to your questions ;)
Not really. It explains to me what a group of people would like to see happen. Major vendors already have NAT for IPv6: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios123/123cgcr/ipv6_c/sa_natpt.htm Indeed, NAT is being pushed by some vendors as a migration tool from IPv4 to IPv6. I have to believe if the code can do IPv4-IPv6 NAT, then doing IPv6 NAT to IPv6 NAT would be trivial. While I would hope we move away from NAT with IPv6, I realize there are brain dead people today with internal policies that read "All network segments must be protected by NAT." I know NAT != security. You know NAT != security. However, the vendors know they can charge these people for a box that does IPv6-IPv6 NAT, these people (in ignorance) want IPv6-IPv6 NAT. Therefor it will exist, and people will use it. So, while you can talk until you're blue in the face about why it may not be needed, good planning dictates you have to realize it will exist, and as such consider what the impact will be on the network. Good product design means designing for people who do stupid stuff with your product, to a certain degree. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org
pgpfLLiqZ4CF1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
