|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:55:40 -0400 From: Lee <ler762@gmail.com> To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote: > > Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is being > able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address > conservation. It has no good use in IPv6. NAT is good for getting the return traffic to the right firewall. How else do you deal with multiple firewalls & asymmetric routing? Yes, it's possible to get traffic back to the right place without NAT. But is it as easy as just NATing the outbound traffic at the firewall? Lee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |