James Knott wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Now that more than sufficient addresses are available, there's absolutely no justification for continuing to use NAT.
You're ignoring the real world. Time, money, unnecessary change etc. I have a "very broken", yet perfectly working NAT setup joining my local RFC1918 office network to my external IPv4 /27 and IPv6 /48 - there is no justification for changing that. You know, if it ain't broke ...
I'm not ignoring the real world. I know about the many existing networks etc. However, that's no excuse to not move to IPv6 and gradually get rid of the IPv4 stuff.
One excuse - lack of a business case? For my customer-side setup, obviously I need to go IPv6, sooner rather than later. For my back-office and local servers, there's no business case.
Sure, if you're not interested in what happens in the not to distant future.
I'm primarily interested in the bottom line; what happens in the near future might well affect that, but I don't see it affecting my use of NAT on my local networks.
On simple networks, as used in homes and many business, it's a trivial matter to get going with IPv6, even if only via a tunnel broker, and start moving to an entirely IPv6 world.
If via a tunnel broker, I submit it's outside the reasonable reach/need of Joe Bloggs. If not, it might be trivial, but not free. With little no apparent benefit.
The tunnel brokers I'm aware of are free.
Like I said: via a tunnel broker, it's outside the reasonable reach/need of Joe Bloggs; if not via a tunnel broker, it might be trivial, but not free. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (14.9°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org