[126036] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felipe Zanchet Grazziotin)
Wed Apr 28 18:04:39 2010
In-Reply-To: <01F57362-8092-48CB-8336-15B9CC1713C2@virtualized.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:03:58 -0300
From: Felipe Zanchet Grazziotin <felipe@starbyte.net>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:54 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Carl Rosevear wrote:
> > I don't understand why anyone thinks NAT should be a fundamental part of
> the v6 internet
>
> Perhaps the ability to change service providers without having to renumber?
>
Couldn't we use link scope (or other local) addresses to local networks, and
have gateways that do 1:1 translation between those addresses and PA space ?
Call it NATv6, whatever.
Nobody is going to remember addresses by hand, name servers (DNS or local
scope as avahi) will be the rule. And DHCPv6 (or router advertisement) is
how you provide your hosts access.
Maybe internal servers, such as smbfs or NFS, could be only at link scope
addresses? No need to renumerate, and full protection from outsiders.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
>
Seriously,
Felipe
