Re: The argument for writing a general purpose NAT for IPv6

[EricLKlein@softhome.net]

> On 2007-04-17 00:55, james woodyatt wrote:
> ...
> I only *NEED* the NAT to redirect flows into transparent ALG's to support > the stateful packet filter. (I'd say it's the market that seems
> unconvinced-- despite the laudable efforts of the authors of the NAP 
> draft-- that IPv6 is sufficient for their needs without general purpose
>  NAT being available, but that's not really my concern.) 
>
> I'm considering the task of writing a general purpose IPv6 NAT because: 
>
> 1) I now have to maintain a full suite of ALG's for both IPv4 and IPv6; 
>
> 2) I've got a collection of IPv4 ALG's already that depend on NAT to work; 
>
> 3) I will still have support IPv4/NAT for the foreseeable future; 
>
> Therefore... the easiest way forward for me is the shortest path: by 
> extending my general purpose IPv4 NAT to support IPv6. It saddens me to 
> have to do it, but there it is.


If I understand what you are trying to do, you want to take the end-to-end 
connectivity of IPv6 and break it in order to support applications that are 
running on multiple machines (thus IP addresses) just like the work around 
that was developed in IPv4 rather than having a load sharing or other device 
in front of the servers that would balance them on the back end? 

This does not sound like an IP layer problem but a problem in the 
applications you are trying to support.