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

Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

  • From: Peter Dambier
  • Date: Sun Jul 03 13:20:31 2005 
David Conrad wrote:

On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:47 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
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.

This is no market. Stunningly enough, IPv4 didn't have NAT back in the early 80's either. I'm guessing that as soon as someone trying to get real work done discovers that they have to renumber their network and all the places where IPv6 addresses have become embedded when they change providers that a market for NATv6 will magically appear.
The good thing with IPv6 is autoconfiguration. There is no need to renumber.
With the radvd daemon running your box builds its own ip as soon as you
plug it in.

Configure your radvd to assign only local addresses is like having DHCP
assign only 192.168.xxx.xxx

Your box will not pass a router to the outside. Nobody will see your
box from the outside.

If your box is allowed then give it a global address from the radvd.
Your box does not care about the changed address. It will happyly use it.




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.


The whole point of 128 bits was that it wasn't NSAPs.

Rgds,
-drc




I have given up writing a new peace of software every now and then to
fix a new protocol broken on my NAT-router.

Things broken because of NAT-routers do run happyly via tunnels to
IPv6 tunnel brokers. You can run 64K servers behind that single ip your
NAT-router has in use. Of course it does not make sense. But try to
run two DNS-servers behind a single NAT using IPv4 addresses. You
may as well try two ftp-servers or two whatever you like.

Today we have software that is able to cross NAT-routers. That software
is a security risk because it is breaking the NAT-router just as
are viruses that break firewalls. Not having to care about NAT we
would have lighter software that was able to take care of itself.

Have a nice weekend
Peter and Karin

--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
+1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com)
+1-360-226-6583-9563 (INAIC)
mail: [email protected]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason