[154943] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT66 was Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (-Hammer-)
Tue Jul 17 08:05:03 2012
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:03:38 -0500
From: -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAD8GWsswFwnPKTfxt=squUmZofs3_-yriHY8o4Gt3W9+x6fVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I have almost one hundred FWs. Some physical. Some virtual. Various
vendors. Your point is spot on.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 7/16/2012 8:55 PM, Lee wrote:
> 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
>
>
