Hi Jan, On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > Another issue is IPv6 support. Everyone agrees that we don't > > want to support IPv6 NAT. So this would have to be removed. > > There is a need for IPv6 (conntrackful) NAT actually, just like there is > for DHCPv6. Hiding hosts (you want websites to know how many devices you > have?) or when your ISP runs a pay-per-address model. DHCPv6 is a useful thing but IPv6 NAT is evil. (IPv4) NAT was introduced to address (i.e. slow down) the depletion of the IPv4 address space. There is simply no need for such a hack for IPv6. If someone wants to hide hosts then run a proxy. Best regards, Jozsef - E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
