On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:09:28 -0500, -Hammer- said: > -------That is clearly a matter of opinion. NAT64 and NAT66 wouldn't be there > if there weren't enough customers asking for it. Are all the customers naive? > I doubt it. They have their reasons. I agree with your "purist" definition and > did not say I was using it. My point is that vendors are still rolling out > base > line features even today.
Sorry to tell you this, but the customers *are* naive and asking for stupid stuff. They think they need NAT under IPv6 because they suffered with it in IPv4 due to addressing issues or a (totally percieved) security benefit (said benefit being *entirely* based on the fact that once you get NAT working, you can build a stateful firewall for essentially free). The address crunch is gone, and stateful firewalls exist, so there's no *real* reason to keep pounding your head against the wall other than "we've been doing it for 15 years".
pgpcxuvjg9XU2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
