Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users

[Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com>]

Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> > The IETF has done it's job with 6to4, but like you said we can't force
> > people to deploy it. But let's stop and think about 6to4. Aren't some of
> > the same "tricks" or ALG's that are planned to make applications work
> > with IPv4 NAT, applicable to 6to4? If so, then we must find solutions
> > now since 6to4 could be with us for many years.
> 
> Given that the whole point of 6to4 is to allow IPv6 packets to be
> passed end-to-end without modification, I don't see how ALGs apply at
> all. NAT-PT of course has similar issues to v4 NAT, but NAT-PT and
> 6to4 are different things.

Indeed. 6to4 is a solution for IPv6 islands to talk to other IPv6 islands.
No ALG issues at all. (The "to" represents the address mapping trick used.)

NAT-PT solves a different problem - how can IPv6-only devices communicate
with the IPv4 legacy? And that does call for ALG support.

   Brian