North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

  • From: Todd Vierling
  • Date: Sat Jul 02 21:50:24 2005 
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

> > There is not need for NAT in IPv6. Use instead NAP (i.e. Network
> > Architecture Protection).
>
> you are ignoring the reality... people WILL want v6 and nat :( it might be
> ugly and distasteful, but the fact remains that people will want and will
> require nat.

Good luck finding an implementation.  The v6 designers have recommended
against it due to the sheer *stupidity* of the concept, and as a result, I
know of no extant implementations of NAT on v6 out there.

The whole point of 128 bits of space is to allow, essentially, embedding of
routing metadata into the address with *still* enough address bits left over
for any possible size of subnetwork.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>