Margaret Wasserman wrote: > In IPv6, we have the added issue of _finding_ the TCP/UDP checksum. > There may be extension headers in the way, and we would need to make > sure that a NAT66 device can handle arbitrary extension headers. > Otherwise, we are effectively eliminating our ability to add new IPv6 > extension headers in the future.
Yet another reason to discourage IPv6 NAT. We need to keep track of these and evaluate their costs, just as much as we need to identify use cases and evaluate their validity. Otherwise we run the risk that by narrowing our focus to making IPv6 NAT work as well as possible, we forget that NAT is still, overall, a bad idea. At best, use of NAT in IPv6 is a sign of our failure to educate users. At worst, it's a sign of a failing of the Internet architecture to accommodate important requirements. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
