[ppml] *Spam?* Re: IPv6 flawed?
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Mon Sep 17 16:19:55 EDT 2007
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
> 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
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML