RE: IPv6 NAT?

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>]

Title: Re: IPv6 NAT?

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.org on behalf of Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 10:30 AM
To: michael.dillon at bt.com
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT?

On 15 feb 2008, at 16:09, <michael.dillon at bt.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.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf