Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

[valdis.kletnieks () vt edu]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:09:28 -0500, -Hammer- said:
> -------That is clearly a matter of opinion. NAT64 and NAT66 wouldn't be there
> if there weren't enough customers asking for it. Are all the customers naive?
> I doubt it. They have their reasons. I agree with your "purist" definition and
> did not say I was using it. My point is that vendors are still rolling out base
> line features even today.

Sorry to tell you this, but the customers *are* naive and asking for stupid
stuff. They think they need NAT under IPv6 because they suffered with it in
IPv4 due to addressing issues or a (totally percieved) security benefit (said
benefit being *entirely* based on the fact that once you get NAT working, you
can build a stateful firewall for essentially free).  The address crunch is
gone, and stateful firewalls exist, so there's no *real* reason to keep
pounding your head against the wall other than "we've been doing it for 15
years".

Attachment: _bin
Description: