nanog mailing list archives
Re: quietly....
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:47:50 -0600
On 2/3/2011 10:30 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hm, if you turn off the NAT66 function, wouldn't the traffic pass through unhindered, too?
Only if the ISP is routing your inside address space to the firewall.
Or do you propose to make IPv6 home gateways the same way IPv4 home gateways work, where it's usually not even possible to turn it off?
Home gateways don't need NAT. It's a balancing act between what is acceptable to break and what isn't. You wouldn't put uPNP on a corporate firewall either (but it's necessary for home gateways even without NAT).
I'm perfectly happy with an IPv6 network that only has rational people on it while those who insist on NAT stay behind on IPv4.
I'm perfectly happy with watching the Internet go to hell; as it has been, and IPv6 will just escalate it. :)
Jack
Current thread:
- Re: Failure modes: NAT vs SPI, (continued)
- Re: Failure modes: NAT vs SPI Owen DeLong (Feb 10)
- Re: Failure modes: NAT vs SPI Joel Jaeggli (Feb 10)
- Re: Failure modes: NAT vs SPI Jay Ashworth (Feb 07)
- Re: Failure modes: NAT vs SPI Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 07)
- Re: Failure modes: NAT vs SPI Jack Bates (Feb 07)
- Re: Failure modes: NAT vs SPI Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 07)
- Re: quietly.... Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jon Lewis (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Matthew Huff (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Bates (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Matthew Palmer (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Bates (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jay Ashworth (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... sthaug (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... david raistrick (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Mark Andrews (Feb 02)
- RE: quietly.... Frank Bulk (Feb 13)
- Re: quietly.... Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 02)