On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:44:18AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
To sum up, NAT gives me two features:
1. Multiple machines on the single-address allocation the ISP gives me.
2. Decoupling of mt local network addresses from the ISP assignment.
I hear a lot of muttering about NATs being evil. I really don't have an
opinion on the subject -- I understand some of the theoretical problems,
but they've never bitten me. So, asking as a network administrator,
how would the implied problems be solved in an IPv6 world?
For #1, you use IPv6 globals on link for the global connections.
For #2, you could (if you wanted) use IPv6 ULAs for intra-site connectivity,
if you didn't want to contemplate using globals and renumbering on changing
ISP (which is a rare events for a home user?)
With IPv6, you don't have to play port mapping shennanigans to have (for
example) multiple web servers on your home intranet accessible from outside,
but until you have that type of requirement (access into your home net) then
you don't see the main advantage.
You can run v4+NAT alongside v6 quite happily too, so use v4 for legacy apps
like mail and web browsing to external sites and v6 for new apps where you
might want to talk direct to peers that would otherwise be behind v4 NATs.
--
Tim
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf