[31048] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: When IPv6 ... if ever?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dana Hudes)
Thu Sep 7 11:07:58 2000
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:05:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dana Hudes <dhudes@hudes.org>
To: batz <batsy@vapour.net>
Cc: smd@clock.org, nanog@merit.edu, nathan@terminus.com,
rmeyer@MHSC.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009070606320.31180-100000@intrepid.vapour.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009071105010.10675-100000@advsol4.dsl.concentric.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
NAT is more than just a means to ease IP address space use.
The use of a dynamic NAT pool allows the hiding of internal IP
topology, thereby increasing security.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, batz wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 smd@clock.org wrote:
>
> :Ask yourself, as an ISP, how much more you are willing to pay your
> :transit providers for IPv4 + IPv6 transit, and how you are going
> :to get the money for that and for the deployment/retraining costs.
> :
> :Then ask yourself, as an ISP, what benefit you get from IPv6.
> :
> :My answers: not a chance, none, and zero, respectively.
> :
>
> Has there been any studies done on IPv6 as an alternative to NAT?
>
> Besides IPSec, dynamic addressing, authentication and improved
> security, are there other benefits to deploying IPv6 instead of
> NAT?
>
>
> --
> batz
> Chief Reverse Engineer
> Superficial Intelligence Research
> Defective Technologies
>
>
