You can still do NAT with IPv6 like you ask for. It's been around over a decade now: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6296
On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 at 12:02, Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote: > Did you read his email? He was saying that what a lot of people wanted was > IPv4 + bigger address space, and not any other changes. Speaking for > myself, other than the bigger address space, for a corporate/enterprise > environment I have yet to see any advantages of IPv6 and many, many issues. > > > > Information hiding, aka NAT is very important in the financial world. > > > > For example, we have a directly peered connection with our clearing > partner at our co-location. Both sides use NAT. This way either side can > make a network change without having to involve the other partner. > > > > Here is what happens without NAT (circa 2008), and yes, this really > happened: > > > > 1. We needed to separate out process and move to a different server. > The existing server IP couldn’t change since other partners had it in their > access list. > 2. It took 9 weeks and: > 1. 3 conference calls including one with 30 participants from the > clearing company > 2. 2 approvals by committees at the clearing company > > > > You can say that this was absurd and should be changed. Yes, but it won’t > and we have no control over them. > > > > With NAT we can change internal IP addresses at any time as long as we > update the NAT tables. > > > > This is not something important at ISP or hosting providers, but it’s many > issues like this in the corporate world that prevent IPv6 adoption. Things > like static addressing, consistent behavior of IPv6 across different > operating systems including disabling SLAAC, privacy addressing and others. > > > > Based on my experience and people on tech mailing list that are oriented > toward enterprises, I would bet that IPv6 deployment (with global > addresses) is significantly less than 10% nor is it on their horizon. > > > > > > *Matthew Huff* | Director of Technical Operations | OTA Management LLC > > > > *Office: 914-460-4039* > > *mh...@ox.com <mh...@ox.com> | **www.ox.com <http://www.ox.com>* > > > *...........................................................................................................................................* > > > > *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox....@nanog.org> * On Behalf Of *Tom > Beecher > *Sent:* Thursday, March 17, 2022 7:41 AM > *To:* b...@uu3.net > *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org > *Subject:* Re: V6 still not supported > > > > “It seems all the market needed was IPv4 with bigger address space. > Instead of delivering it, some contraption has been created trying to solve > non-existant (or already fixed) problems.” > > > > your argument against IPv6 is that they should have created a new version > of IPv4, but bigger? > > > > So… IPv6? > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 06:32 <b...@uu3.net> wrote: > > It seems team developing IPv6 had ONE way of doing things, > with is actually recipe for disaster. Why? Because they were building an IP > protocol. Something that will be using globally by ALL networks around. > Not some local IOT (useless) shit used here and there. > Thats why such IP protocol should be follow KISS concept and flexibility. > Some people have different vision how to run network. And because > Inter-net is an AS to AS network they should have right to do so. > > In my opinion all that crypto stuff should be put layer upper because > crypto is hard, very hard and can get obsolete quickly. > > Its same about other weird things embedded into IPv6 that probably > should go layer up. And now people wonder why IPv6 adoption is crap and > there is high resistance. IPv4 made mistakes too, but hell, it was the > first. > > It seems all the market needed was IPv4 with bigger address space. > Instead of delivering it, some contraption has been created trying to solve > non-existant (or already fixed) problems. > > Just my 2 cents... > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > > From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simp...@gmail.com> > To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: V6 still not supported > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 22:24:14 -0400 > > I'd wanted to clearly distinguish this from the old methods: > > This is intended to replace ARP, ICMP Router Advertisement, ICMP > Redirect, ICMP Information, ICMP Mask, and OSPF Hello in the [IPv6] > environment. There are also elements of the OSI ES-IS and IS-IS Hello. > > We were forward looking to deployments of thousands of systems per link, > rather > than the 30 maximum under then current ethernet standards. We needed fewer > announcements, less chatty traffic, and more specific traffic designation. > > We also prioritized network security. Moreover requiring addresses be > ephemeral, > such that applications would not be able to tie > authentication/authorization to > an > IPv6 address and would be motivated to use cryptographic security. > > Unfortunately, later committees decided that rather than a single simpler > secured > address assignment scheme, we needed unsecured SLAAC and duplicate DHCPv6. > Three ways to do the same thing are always a recipe for disaster. > > Reminder: I was an operator and one of the original NANOG members. > > We spent a lot of time considering human factors. I'd pioneered the > "Operational Considerations" section of the original draft RFCs. > > IPv6 is a case study of what happens with committee-itis. > > The small design team worked well. > >