nanog mailing list archives
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
From: Todd Vierling <tv () duh org>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:47:49 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
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 <tv () duh org> <tv () pobox com> <todd () vierling name>
Current thread:
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008, (continued)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Randy Bush (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Jeroen Massar (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Meyer (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Joe Maimon (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Stephen Sprunk (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Petri Helenius (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Niels Bakker (Jul 01)
- Message not available
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 01)
- Message not available
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 01)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Todd Vierling (Jul 02)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Peter Dambier (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Petri Helenius (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Peter Dambier (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 codewarrior (Jul 03)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 03)