Re: NAT66 : A first implementation

[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>]

Hi,

David Miller wrote:
> From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>
> 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