Le 27 oct. 2010 à 22:48, Roger Marquis a écrit : > As long as consumers and security experts continue demanding v4-style > (stateful) NAT in IPv6 efforts to kill it and/or proclaim it dead are > greatly exaggerated, at best.
I agree that, if a NAT66 is combined with a FW, stateful NAT66 seems more logical than stateless. > In the real world we recognize that IPv6 is and will continue to go > nowhere until working NAT64 and NAT66 implementations are available. As is, this statement is much too general to be defendable: IPv6 has already gone somewhere, and will continue, at least for many residential customers (Free in France, SoftBank in japan, Comcast trials in the US...) > That's not opinion but simple, objective, agenda-free observation. Apparently, you know customers that want NAT66 (in addition to their stateful FWs) because they want IPv6 asap, and find they need IPv6 address translation for this. Then, describing in detail at least one of their configurations, and for which use they need IPv6 asap, would be a very useful contribution. (So far, we have statements that such customers exist, but technical descriptions of what they want to do are IMHO badly missing.) Regards, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
