[170175] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 24 21:37:32 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <201403232009.47085.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:05:29 -0700
To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu
Cc: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 23, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>=20
>> ISP's have done a good job of brain washing their
>> customers into thinking that they shouldn't be able to
>> run services from home. That all their machines
>> shouldn't have a globally unique address that is
>> theoritically reachable from everywhere. That NAT is
>> normal and desiriable.
>>=20
>> I was at work last week and because I have IPv6 at both
>> ends I could just log into the machines at home as
>> easily as if I was there. When I'm stuck using a IPv4
>> only service on the road I have to jump through lots of
>> hoops to reach the internal machines.
>=20
> I expect this to change little in the enterprise space. I=20
> think use of ULA and NAT66 will be one of the things=20
> enterprises will push for, because how can a printer have a=20
> public IPv6 address that is reachable directly from the=20
> Internet, despite the fact that there is a properly=20
> configured firewall at the perimetre offering half-decent=20
> protection?
>=20
> Mark.
So ULA the printers (if you must).
That doesn=92t create a need for ULA on anything that talks to the =
internet, nor does it create a requirement to do NPT or NAT66.
Owen
