[154897] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (-Hammer-)
Mon Jul 16 13:11:59 2012
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:10:56 -0500
From: -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com>
To: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <161620.1342456488@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>,
"Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I agree. Most are naive. Not all.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 7/16/2012 11:34 AM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:09:28 -0500, -Hammer- said:
>> -------That is clearly a matter of opinion. NAT64 and NAT66 wouldn't be there
>> if there weren't enough customers asking for it. Are all the customers naive?
>> I doubt it. They have their reasons. I agree with your "purist" definition and
>> did not say I was using it. My point is that vendors are still rolling out base
>> line features even today.
> Sorry to tell you this, but the customers *are* naive and asking for stupid
> stuff. They think they need NAT under IPv6 because they suffered with it in
> IPv4 due to addressing issues or a (totally percieved) security benefit (said
> benefit being *entirely* based on the fact that once you get NAT working, you
> can build a stateful firewall for essentially free). The address crunch is
> gone, and stateful firewalls exist, so there's no *real* reason to keep
> pounding your head against the wall other than "we've been doing it for 15
> years".
>
