[136522] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Thu Feb 3 12:32:07 2011
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:00:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <5A51DAF3-6189-4785-9543-CB046B2819B9@muada.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
> On 3 feb 2011, at 17:16, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> > When someone breaks or shuts off that filter, traffic through the
> > NAPT firewall stops working. On the stateful firewall with public
> > IPs on both sides, everything works...including the traffic you
> > didn't want.
>
> > People are going to want NAT66...and not providing it may slow down
> > IPv6 adoption.
>
> Hm, if you turn off the NAT66 function, wouldn't the traffic pass
> through unhindered, too?
>
> 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?
I think the implication includes available 1918-like space to use behind
the NAT which is similarly publicly non-routable; *this* is the part we
care about -- that those addresses are only accessible *to the edge router*.
Cheers,
-- jra
