Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:12:16 +0200 From: Mark Martinec <Mark.Martinec+freebsd@ijs.si> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer Message-ID: <201304151412.16246.Mark.Martinec%2Bfreebsd@ijs.si> In-Reply-To: <20130415.125100.74672975.sthaug@nethelp.no> References: <951943801.20130415141536@serebryakov.spb.ru> <195468703.20130415143237@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20130415.125100.74672975.sthaug@nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday April 15 2013 12:32:37 Lev Serebryakov wrote: > And, yes, NAT64 will be useful for sure, but it is another story, > not IPv6<->IPv6 translation. Fear not, NPT66 prefix translation is stateless, this is nothing like NAT44 / NAPT. On Monday April 15 2013 12:51:00 sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: > We are *way* too late in the game to completely avoid IPv6 NAT. > Various flavors already exist in the form of RFCs, e.g. NPTv6: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296 Prefix translation is useful for SOHO or branch offices with more than one uplink, unless one wants to invest into AS and BGP or start building tunnels: http://blog.ioshints.info/2011/12/we-just-might-need-nat66.html Mark
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201304151412.16246.Mark.Martinec%2Bfreebsd>