On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:43:12PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote: > Hi, > > Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I > am really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in > their right mind would actually want to use this?
To reach v4 only hosts, d'oh? > IN IPv6, the smallest assigned to remote site is so big anyway and > based on the RFC recommendation to provide a /48 to remote site and > even a /56 to a single house, how could anyone possibly think he/she > would even run of IP's and need NAT64? This is a utopic dream, the reality is /64 or /128s in many places. This is useless for anyone with a router unless you start playing with proxy ndp which will end in tears, or NAT. But I really do not see what on earth does this have to do with NAT64 at all. > Isn't it just a side effect of a sadly miss guided use of NAT in > IPv4 as a firewall carry over to a IPv6 world instead of starting to > do proper setup now that IP's will be plentiful anyway? NAT will not go away, there are plenty of corner cases where it is useful (like managment networks where you cannot put each management interface in a vrf.) Companies will also very likely want to keep private addresses internally; NAT is easier for many cases than having a separate routable address on every host. NAT is a necessary evil, and it really is not that bad when operated voluntarily by the same party as the end-hosts behind it. The real problem is CGN; I doubt any ISP is going to NAT when it is not absolutely necessary because it is expensive and painful.
