Re: quietly....

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

On 2/3/2011 10:30 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Hm, if you turn off the NAT66 function, wouldn't the traffic pass
> through unhindered, too?

Only if the ISP is routing your inside address space to the firewall.

> Or do you propose to make IPv6 home gateways the same way IPv4 home
> gateways work, where it's usually not even possible to turn it off?

Home gateways don't need NAT. It's a balancing act between what is 
acceptable to break and what isn't. You wouldn't put uPNP on a corporate 
firewall either (but it's necessary for home gateways even without NAT).


> I'm perfectly happy with an IPv6 network that only has rational
> people on it while those who insist on NAT stay behind on IPv4.

I'm perfectly happy with watching the Internet go to hell; as it has 
been, and IPv6 will just escalate it. :)


Jack