Sabahattin, Note that IPv6 NAT makes multihoming to different ISPs much easier as well. One thing that IPv6 NAT has in advantage to IPv4 NAT is that it can be stateless, isomorphic, and port transparent by just translating the upper part of the address, such as in the case where an enterprise is internally using a PI /48, just translating the upper 48 bits of the address. This allows easy multihoming without needing to punch holes in ISP address blocks. Especially with IPv6's huge address space, it's extremely important for routing scalability to keep the number of globally announced exceptions to aggregatable address blocks to a bare minimum. If you don't need to multihome, renumber, or use PI addresses, then I agree that there's little utility to IPv6 NAT. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Not in the IPv6 address space, anyway. And if it is, there's something > wrong and we should put it right. > > Just been reading IAB's commentary on IPv6 NAT. It seems to me that we are > perpetuating the worst technology in existence *simply* for one feature, > network mobility, that is better served by proposing new techniques and > technologies and, in particular: we need a simple way to express host > relationships inside an organisation that is independent of external homing. > I refuse to suffer because of NAT any longer and don't want to accommodate > those that prefer it. If IPv6 does ever get wide enough deployment, and I > truly hope it does, I might just *give up* things to accommodate the > trouble-free life that is no NAT. > > What do we have right now, first? > > Cheers, > Sabahattin > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf