On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:11 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 05:29:09 am Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:28 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> > > No, the downside is that each address used will be exposed to the world.
> > False. That is *NOT* a downside.
> In your opinion. Others hold a different opinion.
Others are wrong. Check the RFCs and other papers.
> While security through obscurity doesn't help in many circumstances,
> there are physical security controls that absolutely depend upon it,
> and work.
False analogy.
> And a NAT66 will be implemented, and people *will* NAT66 their
> self-assigned ULA addresses (which, unlike PA /48's are portable;
> the alternative is all end users wanting portability getting PI /48's,
> and the router ops are getting their selves in a knot thinking about
> the route table bloat that will cause) to whatever the PA du jour is.
But it isn't NAT. Not like IPv4 NAT, so this doesn't do much to the
argument in defense of IPv4-style NAT.
IPv6 routing tables are significantly smaller - which is a large
advantage to IPv6.
> This *will* happen, and no amount of wishful thinking by t
> ransparent-Internet-idealogues is going to change it, since this
> is and will be the market demand. Whether you and I like it or not,
> this is the direction things are going; we might as well get used to it.
> You can read the NAT66 draft standard yourself at (one mirror)
> http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/internet-drafts/draft-mrw-nat66-00.txt
I'm certain some people will use it, and that there are legitimate uses.
But it doesn't, and won't, serve the same purpose as NAT does in IPv4.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
