[136466] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Johnson)
Thu Feb 3 10:07:15 2011
From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
To: Dave Israel <davei@otd.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:53:12 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4D4A43B6.5080306@otd.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I will rebut in-line.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Israel [mailto:davei@otd.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:57 PM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: quietly....
>
>On 2/2/2011 5:42 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
>> I must have missed something. Why would u do NAT in IPv6?
>
>1) To allow yourself to change or maintain multiple upstreams without
>renumbering.
Not sure what you mean here. So having PI space can't accomplish this?
>2) To allow your IPv6-only hosts to reach IPv4 addresses, or vice versa.
This is not a NAT66 specific solution.
>3) To give all your outbound sessions a mutual appearance, so as to
>confound those attempting to build a profile of your activity.
So this goes back to security through obscurity. OK.
>4) To irritate the IPv6 faithful.
>5) Because it is funny.
Oh yeah, I forgot that you were funny. :)
>6) Because you have allocated a single address to a machine that later
>on actually represents n differerent actual network entities, and
>retrofitting them with their own unique IPv6 subnet presents a problem.
Huh?
>7) Because Iljitch bet you you couldn't, and you don't want to lose a bet.
>8) Because chicks/dudes think it's hot.
>9) Because you can.
>10) Because it is the year 8585, and we're running low on IPv6 addresses
OK... so this list of ten boils down to really two items that seem complete=
ly valid and one that seems like a corner case, but are also not the purpos=
e of NAT66 as far as I can tell.
Anyone else without the sarcasm?
- Brian
P.S... I'm not against NAT66, I just don't yet understand it at the layers =
above 7. :)
