On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 15:52 +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:44:18AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > > > To sum up, NAT gives me two features: > > > > 1. Multiple machines on the single-address allocation the ISP gives me. > > 2. Decoupling of mt local network addresses from the ISP assignment. > > > > I hear a lot of muttering about NATs being evil. I really don't have an > > opinion on the subject -- I understand some of the theoretical problems, > > but they've never bitten me. So, asking as a network administrator, > > how would the implied problems be solved in an IPv6 world? The internet does not only consist of HTTP pages. What if you want to do VoIP from _multiple_ computers or even real VoIP phones. Or something nice as setting up a gameserver behind your NAT. Won't work. That many applications have a lot of tricks to circumvent NAT's, mostly by using some external un-nat-ted server, that is sheer luck, it still is not end to end. > For #1, you use IPv6 globals on link for the global connections. > > For #2, you could (if you wanted) use IPv6 ULAs for intra-site connectivity, > if you didn't want to contemplate using globals and renumbering on changing > ISP (which is a rare events for a home user?) Depends on the type of home user ;) Nevertheless, most homes currently only consist of maybe 3 ethernet segments (wired, wireless, office or something) and maybe a max of 20 hosts. Changing the IP's of those hosts should not be a problem even if you had to do it manually. Most of these NAT boxes come with built-in DHCP support, hopefully the will come with IPv6 and RA and maybe DHCPv6 support too in the near future (Yamaha has them already :) Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf