> But a statement like the following, from Roger Marquis, holds in my > understanding for all the variants: > "A far greater number of us, however, are looking for stateful NAT as well. > Question is, why are a relatively small number of stateless NAT (66) > proponents being catered to while the majority is ignored?".
With enough IPv6 addresses easily available, and stateful firewalling handling the most common security requirements (I believe both of these are true) - the need for *stateful* NAT isn't nearly as obvious as the need for stateless NAT. So - while I don't question that *some* users are looking for stateful IPv6 NAT, I'm not convinced about the "far greater number of us" part. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [email protected] _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
