[arin-ppml] inevitability of NAT?
jbates at brightok.net
Mon Feb 7 19:51:11 EST 2011
On 2/7/2011 2:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> NAT isn't the solution. SPI is the solution. NAT is unnecessary in IPv6.
Just because I love arguing with you, Owen.
NPTv6 on 6to4 anycast implementation is currently under way. It has 2
possible uses (1 I like, 2 I'm iffy on)
1) CGN networks needing 6to4 anycast support can use NPTv6 to NAT the
2002:bogusCGNIP:: address to ISP prefixes.
2) By using NAT to convert 2002:: addresses to ISP prefixes, you void
out the need of a return anycast relay in any 6to4 implementation (at
the cost of having used NAT66).
6to4 is still a temporary transition mechanism. #1 is required to use
6to4 in CGN environments. #2 is a safeguard mechanism so you don't
depend on the return anycast relay, but the cost is NAT66 (it's a poor
mans 6rd to be honest and a hack).
I honestly expect to see it deployed with #1, as CGN is expected to be
prevalent which voids out the #2 cases.
More information about the ARIN-PPML