On Oct 31, 2010, at 09:58 , Fred Baker wrote: > > one has to define "without NAT". If you mean "without NAT between the network > and the upstream, as a security procedure", Cisco is on that list. We have > NAT internally as a way to use RFC 1918 addresses in addition to those we > have had allocated by our RIRs, but that isn't even address amplification per > se.
You'd also have to count Apple, whose enterprise network is numbered for IPv4 from its legacy 17/8 allocation and for IPv6 from its PI space obtained from ARIN. All the various boxen on my desk in Cupertino have globally routed IPv4 and IPv6 addresses today. No NAT used at all. (Even the WiFi on the commuter shuttle assigns a globally routed non-translated address.) -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
