Fred Baker wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > >> NATs impair both addressability and reachability, and we do a >> disservice to the community if we pretend otherwise. NAT (really NAPT) >> does harm to reachability because it blocks traffic in one direction >> even if this is not explicit policy, and NAPT limits the flexibility of >> a site to choose a policy that takes application usage into account. NAT >> can also impair reachability when binding state is lost or discarded. > > That's true of IPv4/IPv4 NATs. It's not true of NAT66 - explicitly.
Not clear. Any time it becomes necessary to use a particular v6 address from a particular scope in order to reach a peer, reachability is harmed. Any time a NAT creates an alias for an existing address that, if used, might cause pessimal routing of traffic, reachability is harmed. _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
