Hi, David Miller wrote: > From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:15:47 +0200 (CEST) > > > Of course yours is feature-richer. But the topic of IPv6 NAT has had > > come up a number of unrecollectable times, and the response has been the > > same everytime - NAT is still an ugly undesired hack whose recurrence > > wants to be avoided. > > You can't avoid it. > > People want to hide the details of the topology of their > internal networks, therefore we will have NAT with ipv6 > no matter what we think or feel. > > Everyone needs to stop being in denial, now. I have to agree. In fact, we have started using simple, static IPv6-NAT (implemented in userspace) in our cloud environment. I still think that IPv6-NAT is NOT a "must to have," but I agree that some kind of IPv6-NAT will give us more options from network and/or cloud operational point of view. So, I am okay to have it and let market to decide. Two things: - I am still against NAT for link-local addresses. - "NAT" between IPv6 and IPv4 is, of course, needed, as well. Regards, --yoshfuji -- 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
