[128021] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk - iName.com)
Fri Jul 23 00:35:41 2010
From: "Frank Bulk - iName.com" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Akyol, Bora A'" <bora@pnl.gov>, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>,
<matthew@matthew.at>
In-Reply-To: <C86E524C.4695%bora@pnl.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:35:30 -0500
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: frnkblk@iname.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Keep selling them the NAT router, just don't tell them that it applies only
to IPv4 only and not to IPv6. 99.9% of consumers don't know about NAT, they
just want to plug it in and be connected. That's why having a stateful
firewall as standard element of an IPv6-capable router specification would
keep SOHO IPv6 connectivity "on par" with IPv4.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Akyol, Bora A [mailto:bora@pnl.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:54 PM
To: Owen DeLong; matthew@matthew.at
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
As long as customers believe that having a NAT router/"firewall" in place is
a security feature,
I don't think anyone is going to get rid of the NAT box.
In all reality, NAT boxes do work for 99% of customers out there.
Bora
On 7/22/10 7:34 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Well, wouldn't it be better if the provider simply issued enough space to
make NAT66 unnecessary?
Owen
