[75264] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Tue Nov 9 17:47:46 2004
In-Reply-To: <20041109160905.GA40147@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:46:49 +0100
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 9-nov-04, at 17:09, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> Indeed, NAT is being pushed by some vendors as a migration tool
> from IPv4 to IPv6. I have to believe if the code can do IPv4-IPv6
> NAT, then doing IPv6 NAT to IPv6 NAT would be trivial.
There is a very big difference about NAT in IPv4 and NAT in IPv6,
though:
In IPv4, you can't ignore NAT because it's too widespread and it's
impossible to iradicate it because there isn't enough address space. So
people are bending over backwards to make their stuff NAT compatible.
However, there is plenty of address space in IPv6 to go NATless, so
protocol desingers and implementers are unlikey to add NAT workarounds
for IPv6. This means it's very unlikely that applications that don't
use simple client/server communication are going to work with NAT in
IPv6.
