Tom Pusateri wrote: > So once you limit NAT for IPv6 to a 1:1 mapping (i.e. you no longer > share an address), then it seems like there's isn't a big advantage over > an application gateway.
wtf? application gateways have to be written for each protocol, whereas NATs do not (at least for those protocols that don't do referrals). that makes for a huge deployment mess. it also breaks apps when the end points upgrade their protocols and the ALGs don't keep track. Keith (now if we're going to have NATs at all, I'm a big fan of having a standard signaling/control protocol that should work for all NATs. but that's not the same as an application gateway) _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
