Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: > > In case you didn't see this: > http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Netfilter-developers-working-on-NAT-for-ip6tables-1385877.html > > It's a complete IPv6 NAT implementation with the functionality of > the IPv4 one in the same stack. ALGs. Port translation. Connection > tracking. You don't need me to tell you why I don't like this. I fail to understand the issue that you have with this. Doing home gateways and *NOT* using dynamic temporary IPv6 addresses for outbound connections by default (i.e. *NO* static network prefix that can be linked to a single ISP customer) would be extremely irresponsible with respect to data privacy protection. Without that, I consider IPv6 a complete no-go. And many DSL routers are based on Linux, so having an implementation of such a NAT is a prerequisite before IPv6 can be reasonably offered to home customers in Europe. I'm perfectly OK with folks getting static IPv6 network prefixes for specific applications that desperately need it. But the default definitely ought to be temporary dynamic IPv6 addresses, especially for outbound connections. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf