Re: IPv6 NAT?

[Terry Gray <gray at washington.edu>]

> That's a terrible idea, because it would pander to the myths that
> NAT is a security or policy tool.

Brian,
Several comments in this thread have suggested that security is the 
primary driver for NAT.

While it is surely a factor, I believe the dominant driver for NAT is 
addressing autonomy.

Unless/until enterprise (or even home) network operators have some 
number of bits of address to call their own, without risk of forced 
change or being held hostage to their ISP, you will have NAT for v6 
just like for v4.  I think you can take that to the bank.

(Note that autoconf doesn't remove this need... enterprise operators 
will have local host addresses sprinkled throughout a plethora of 
departmental traffic disruption appliances, so renumbering will be 
viewed by many as a non-starter.)

-teg

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