Consider the case where my home network is IPv6, my broadband provider is IPv4
only and the box I am ultimately contacting is IPv6.
There you have an IPV6 NAT box, its called the legacy IPv4 Internet and its
going to be around for at least as long as Telex survived after the invention
of email.
________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 10:30 AM
To: michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT?
On 15 feb 2008, at 16:09, <michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com> wrote:
Vendors need to agree on the timeout for mappings and on the
method for substituting prefixes. Even if ignoring port translation
seems obvious, a vendor who is adapting/upgrading old code might
include this in the absence of a standard.
With 1-to-1 address translation without the port overloading the
mappings can be static so there is no need for timeouts. And incoming
connections can be translated just as easily as outgoing connections.
One wonders whether the pro-NAT crowd would actually like something as
open as that. Then again, emulating IPv4 NAT behavior just because
it's the devil we know even though it would require a significant
effort to create IPv6 versions of ALGs and then it would still get in
the way of legitimate applications a whole lot isn't all that
attractive, either.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf