Roger Marquis wrote: > Keith Moore wrote: >>> That's true of IPv4/IPv4 NATs. It's not true of NAT66 - explicitly. >> Not clear. Any time it becomes necessary to use a particular v6 address >> from a particular scope in order to reach a peer, reachability is >> harmed. Any time a NAT creates an alias for an existing address that, >> if used, might cause pessimal routing of traffic, reachability is harmed. > > Exactly, and that's one of the two main reasons NAT is so popular. > Residential and commercial network owners and operators don't want their > internal hosts to be directly reachable.
perhaps not, but they want their favorite apps to work even if those apps require that those hosts be directly reachable. in other words, people want what they want, and the vast majority of those people don't understand the extent to which things like "whether their hosts are directly reachable" impacts what they want. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
