On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:47 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
Good luck finding an implementation. The v6 designers have
recommended
against it due to the sheer *stupidity* of the concept, and as a
result, I
know of no extant implementations of NAT on v6 out there.
This is no market. Stunningly enough, IPv4 didn't have NAT back in
the early 80's either. I'm guessing that as soon as someone trying
to get real work done discovers that they have to renumber their
network and all the places where IPv6 addresses have become embedded
when they change providers that a market for NATv6 will magically
appear.
The whole point of 128 bits of space is to allow, essentially,
embedding of
routing metadata into the address with *still* enough address bits
left over
for any possible size of subnetwork.
The whole point of 128 bits was that it wasn't NSAPs.
Rgds,
-drc
