Re: NAT66 was Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

[-Hammer- <bhmccie () gmail com>]

I have almost one hundred FWs. Some physical. Some virtual. Various 
vendors. Your point is spot on.

-Hammer-

"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer

On 7/16/2012 8:55 PM, Lee wrote:
> On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is being
> > able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address
> > conservation. It has no good use in IPv6.
> NAT is good for getting the return traffic to the right firewall.  How
> else do you deal with multiple firewalls & asymmetric routing?
>
> Yes, it's possible to get traffic back to the right place without NAT.
>   But is it as easy as just NATing the outbound traffic at the
> firewall?
>
> Lee