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

[Gert Doering <gert@space.net>]

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 12:33:12PM -0700, james woodyatt wrote:
> raising this issue here, and I've not seen any sign whatsoever that  
> V6OPS or the wider IETF is at all concerned about the loss of end-to- 
> end connectivity in IPv6 caused by these filters.

Well, I'm certainly not "v6ops or the wider IETF", I'm just an operator,
and I *have* voiced my concerns (in the form of a mail full of "I don't
really understand this discussion" questions).

Given that we seem to be here because "folks that decide" insist on 
having IPv6 stateful packet filters on-by-default on zero-conf devices,
we *need* to have some sort of "please open this inbound port for me"
communication mechanism.

> It's easy to conclude that the end-to-end connectivity of IPv6 is not  
> expected to be any better than it is with IPv4/NAT, and that IETF  
> thinks this is perfectly reasonable.  Be assured, Apple engineering  
> management has NOTED WELL how this discussion has unfolded, and is  
> making plans accordingly.

I don't think this discussion can be used to conclude how "the IETF 
thinks" (but unfortunately, the IETF decision process is a bit on the
slow side).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  113403

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