Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

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

I agree. Most are naive. Not all.

-Hammer-

"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer

On 7/16/2012 11:34 AM, valdis.kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> 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".