[ppml] *Spam?* Re: IPv6 flawed?

On 17-sep-2007, at 22:02, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> I can't say one way or another if IETF has deliberately made choices
> with IPv6 that make it more difficult to design an IPv6 NAT, simply  
> for
> the sake of making it more difficult to design an IPv6 NAT.  Since,
> I'm not tasked with designing an IPv6 NAT and have not researched it.
> But, from what some people
> seem to have said in the past, an outsider would certainly draw that
> conclusion.

Don't know when NAT was invented, but I'm pretty sure even if it  
existed back when IPv6 was designed it wasn't on the radar at all.

I don't believe it's harder to do NAT with IPv6 than with IPv4.  
Certainly the people who created PF didn't seem daunted by the  
prospect. But the question is: when you have IPv6 NAT, what are you  
going to do with it? I don't see people bending over backwards to  
make their applications work through IPv6 NAT like they do for IPv4  
NAT: if you don't mind NAT, you're better off sticking with IPv4. Or  
use IPv6 with a proxy, that pretty much does the same thing as NAT  
but only cleaner because the applications have to know about it.  
Bonus: you can proxy between IPv4 and IPv6.

But I believe it would actually be easier to do the whole NAT/ALG/ 
workaround thing with IPv4 because unlike with IPv4, you don't have  
to NAT from a single public address to a bunch of internal addresses,  
but you can do a 1-to-1 mapping between public and internal addresses.