> -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:29 PM > To: Jeff Haran > Cc: David Miller; jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx; T.Moes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netfilter- > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: NAT66 : A first implementation > ... > So, really, before we do the whole "NATS BAD!" dogpile again, I'd > encourage people take an unprejudiced look at the technique described in > RFC 6296. There may actually be a place for NPTv6 in netfilter after all. I was unaware of the RFC. Thanks for the reference, however I have to point out the following quote from its introduction: "For reasons discussed in [RFC2993] and Section 5, the IETF does not recommend the use of Network Address Translation technology for IPv6." I'm not saying nobody is going to use IPv6 NAT nor that the Linux world should somehow make it hard on them to do so. There may be a few cases where it makes sense. All I am saying is I think most will come to the conclusion that the benefits they get from it will not compensate for the hassle of dealing with it. And lacking popularity, many of the hassles will go unaddressed, further encouraging users to not use it. With IPv4, NAT quickly became a necessity because of the lack of address space. If your application or device broke IPv4 NAT, you had a lot of incentive to change it so it worked with NAT. I think it is unlikely that the same incentives will come into play with any form of IPv6 NAT. -- 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
