[136512] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Feb 3 12:06:26 2011
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:47:50 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A51DAF3-6189-4785-9543-CB046B2819B9@muada.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
