From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 15 12:12:24 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D289EF9; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:12:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Mark.Martinec+freebsd@ijs.si) Received: from mail.ijs.si (mail.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80::25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477AACC4; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:12:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from amavis-proxy-ori.ijs.si (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3Zq7r60C8ZzGN2P; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:12:22 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ijs.si; h= message-id:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :mime-version:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:date :subject:subject:organization:from:from:received:received :received:vbr-info; s=jakla2; t=1366027936; x=1368619937; bh=CDS SV0jzTciporXtxv/xcn/uck9EX9P4mogmf/LFhDk=; b=CjJTrAGAls+g7exQjQW IRp+Zb2lkAiaQbHmYPEE9pdxCMqcRwSiuzu0Dov3bsm88Glki3O07C71kLO/xHMg +y6jLgtyvog/tFG78A3CVGVNTH+kyYH0i8AmUnTKeihyPTXZ3TWZupa22l5oH0TT dIKmeB8cb8VaDe4p7ucrJk8c= VBR-Info: md=ijs.si; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org; X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ijs.si Received: from mail.ijs.si ([IPv6:::1]) by amavis-proxy-ori.ijs.si (mail.ijs.si [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10012) with ESMTP id Dal7cfbi-S8Y; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:12:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mildred.ijs.si (mailbox.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80::143:1]) by mail.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:12:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sleepy.ijs.si (sleepy.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80:e001::1:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mildred.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AB15B68; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:12:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Mark Martinec Organization: J. Stefan Institute To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:12:16 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (FreeBSD/9.1-STABLE; KDE/4.9.5; amd64; ; ) References: <951943801.20130415141536@serebryakov.spb.ru> <195468703.20130415143237@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20130415.125100.74672975.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <20130415.125100.74672975.sthaug@nethelp.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201304151412.16246.Mark.Martinec+freebsd@ijs.si> Cc: current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:12:24 -0000 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