Per Jessen said the following on 09/10/2010 02:47 AM:
Anton Aylward wrote:
IPv6 may be a good thing, but this slagging of NAT is not necessary. There are and there will continue to be good reasons or people to use NAT.
+1.
I will go so far as to predict that even with IPv6in place, there will be something like "network 10" - private address spaces, and hence something like NAT. Its just too convenient to have addresses that cannot be - will not be - routed.
unique local addresses, I think that is.
Its funny. When I read the RFCs and commentaries on ULA (go google) they seem to have only a slight difference from the older RFCs such as RFC1918. These seem to be 1. There is no mention of address space exhaustion. 2. There are efforts at central administration The second I find laughable. The emphasis on non-routable address space for local use and the "isolation" has much the same _semantic_ content as RFC1918 and RFC1627. So, if "Network 10" and NAT is to be 'cosnidered harmfu'l then fc00::/7 and the gateway that maps those non-routable address across the 'Net is to be 'considered harmful' as well. In RFC4193 we have <quote> - Provides Local IPv6 prefixes that can be used independently of any provider-based IPv6 unicast address allocations. This is useful for sites not always connected to the Internet or sites that wish to have a distinct prefix that can be used to localize traffic inside of the site. </quote> Yes, the wording is different, but that is what "network 10" (and the other unroutable IPv4 addresses) was achieving. Locally restricted addressing that necessitated an _explicit_ (i.e. NAT'ing firewall) gateway (aka choke point where access rules can be applied) Whoopee. IPv6 is "broken" in exactly the same way that IPv4 was. Big Deal. -- If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger. Thomas H. Huxley -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org