From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mohamed Eldesoky Subject: Re: [netfilter-core] ip6tables question Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:07:47 +0200 Message-ID: <1403218a05033104077989a922@mail.gmail.com> References: <200503301301.j2UD10rV019959@future.co.kr> <20050330152316.GH21867@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Reply-To: Mohamed Eldesoky Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20050330152316.GH21867@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Harald Welte , netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:23:16 +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:19:11PM +0900, kesan wrote: > > When is support NAT table for Ip6tables? > > Only over my dead body. We will never implement ipv6-to-ipv6 network > address translation as long as I have any say in netfilter/iptables > development. NAT is evil and causes horrible breakage of end-to-end on > the internet. IPv6 has enough addresses and therefore no justification > for NAT. > > -- > - Harald Welte http://netfilter.org/ > ============================================================================ > "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early > architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going > on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie > > > One of the benefits of IPv6 is that we get ride of NATing, so, don't think to re-use NATing in IPv6 networks. -- Mohamed Eldesoky www.eldesoky.net RHCE