Le 25 oct. 2010 à 17:59, Gert Doering a écrit : > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 05:41:30PM +0200, Rémi Després wrote: >> But, again, many users already use "native" IPv6 (neither 6to4 nor Teredo) >> and no bomb has exploded. >> And AFAIK no bomb is timed to explode either. > > Please understand that *your* customers are not the type of networks > Chris Engel talks about. Residential and enterprise are the most distant > points in a spectrum - residential *wants* e2e and p2p apps, while enterprise > does *not* want that. > > This discussion has been rehashed a number of times now, and it's time > that the "anti-NAT" crowd starts to accept that e2e is not a desirable > property in some networks, and thus, this aspect of NAT doesn't do "harm".
It seems you accept that it may do some "harm" in the residential case (which is the case I discuss: unmanaged CPEs). IMHO, it is rather time that NAT addicts start to listen to the following argument: As soon as you have a FW in a customer site, you don't need to break the e2e address preservation of IPv6 to protect this site. RD > > Gert Doering > -- > did you enable IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
