From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Tomt 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: Received: from catastrophix.ugh.no ([178.79.162.34]:56553 "EHLO catastrophix.ugh.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754629Ab2HYBRA (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:17:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5038233F.7000202@tomt.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.