[136396] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Johnson)
Wed Feb 2 17:43:07 2011
From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 22:42:06 +0000
In-Reply-To: <3CD3A697-8D3C-4EDE-8E4E-53C0E103E12C@sackheads.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I must have missed something. Why would u do NAT in IPv6?
John Payne <john@sackheads.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 11:40 AM, John Payne wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> NAT66 is different. NAT66 breaks things in ways that impact sites outsi=
de of the site choosing to deploy NAT.
>>
>> Examples?
>
> SIP
> Network enabled Video Games
> Peer to Peer services of various forms
> etc.
I chose NAT66. How does that affect you or any other site?
Note that I have already blocked games and peer to peer either technically =
or via policy.... and I have no SIP end points that have any business talki=
ng outside the enterprise.
Just rephrasing you slightly. NAT66 will break applications that many ente=
rprises will already have blocked at their perimeters.
