I agree. Most are naive. Not all.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 7/16/2012 11:34 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
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".
