... > An often used example of how IPv6 is better than IPv4, talks about > how every device can have its own IPv6 address, so that just like > a telephone set, every device can be "called" by any other device. > But if you look into how the telephone system works, many telephone > sets are not available to receive calls. Instead, they are in > communication with a PABX which may or may not forward phone calls > to the phone set. Another example were pay phones which did not have their incoming number published, or were disabled from accepting incoming calls. This was especially common in areas where criminal activity was associated with such incoming calls (most commonly the sale and distribution of illegal drugs or prostitution). Since then many of these pay phones have since been de-installed (for various reasons) and such criminal activity has moved to pre-paid cellular phones. > Since an IPv6 NAT device fills an analogous gateway > role in the Internet, one wonders why there is no IPv6 NAT standard > to cover things like local hosts registering with the NAT to receive > packets on a certain port, or local hosts registering a forwarding > address for packets on a certain port. Network address translation is not necessary to enforce such restrictions -- a firewall is adequate. For the specific requirements listed in your sentence above, a host firewall would even be sufficient. -d _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf