...
An often used example of how IPv6 is better than IPv4, talks about
how every device can have its own IPv6 address, so that just like
a telephone set, every device can be "called" by any other device.
But if you look into how the telephone system works, many telephone
sets are not available to receive calls. Instead, they are in
communication with a PABX which may or may not forward phone calls
to the phone set.
Another example were pay phones which did not have their incoming
number published, or were disabled from accepting incoming calls.
This was especially common in areas where criminal activity was
associated with such incoming calls (most commonly the sale and
distribution of illegal drugs or prostitution). Since then many
of these pay phones have since been de-installed (for various
reasons) and such criminal activity has moved to pre-paid
cellular phones.
Since an IPv6 NAT device fills an analogous gateway
role in the Internet, one wonders why there is no IPv6 NAT standard
to cover things like local hosts registering with the NAT to receive
packets on a certain port, or local hosts registering a forwarding
address for packets on a certain port.
Network address translation is not necessary to enforce such
restrictions -- a firewall is adequate. For the specific
requirements listed in your sentence above, a host firewall
would even be sufficient.
-d
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf