From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andre Tomt <andre@tomt.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] netfilter: IPv6 NAT
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 03:16:58 +0200
Message-ID: <5038278A.6080901@tomt.net>
References: <1344542943-11588-1-git-send-email-kaber@trash.net> <5038233F.7000202@tomt.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: kaber@trash.net
Return-path: <netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <5038233F.7000202@tomt.net>
Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On 25. aug. 2012 02:58, Andre Tomt wrote:
> On 09. aug. 2012 22:08, kaber@trash.net wrote:
>> The following patches contain an updated version of IPv6 NAT against
>> Linus' current tree.
>
> Hmmm. Looking in my crystal ball (hi #ipv6!), I predict that if this
> lands in mainline - and thus in consumer CPE/routers eventually - many
> ISP's will have little incentive to actually implement assigning of
> blocks to their consumer users like they "have to" today.
>
> We have this wonderful chance of fixing a major problem with todays
> internet, but now we are going down this very slippery slope.
>
> I do need this code for a experimental project myself, and acknowledge
> there may be some valid use cases, but I do not like the global
> implications one bit.
>
> At least some big fat warnings please?

Clarification: This is about the NAT66 port-based 1:n NAT targets.