For all you "NAT is soo secure I need to NAT" folks please take the time and read the following RFC that the IETF has carefully put together to address all those arguments.
URL: http://myietf.unfix.org/documents/rfc4864.txt Abstract: 8<---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although there are many perceived benefits to Network Address Translation (NAT), its primary benefit of "amplifying" available address space is not needed in IPv6. In addition to NAT's many serious disadvantages, there is a perception that other benefits exist, such as a variety of management and security attributes that could be useful for an Internet Protocol site. IPv6 was designed with the intention of making NAT unnecessary, and this document shows how Local Network Protection (LNP) using IPv6 can provide the same or more benefits without the need for address translation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------->8 Now, if you have a problem with that document and the way it solves your problems, please raise them in the v6ops WG of the IETF so that they know about them and can address your concerns. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
