4 ms·
> For one thing lack of NAT makes it much easier to deal with multi-homed systems. It’s the opposite imo. Lack of NAT makes it impossible to do policy based ro
by yardstick 8y ago
> For one thing lack of NAT makes it much easier to deal with multi-homed systems.
It’s the opposite imo. Lack of NAT makes it impossible to do policy based routing enforced at a router level, eg route VoIP over ISP 1, and Web over ISP 2. Without NAT, each IPv6 PC is issued one or more IP addresses per WAN, but has no idea when it’s appropriate to use one over the other. (SLAAC router advertisements aren’t sophisticated enough)
- magila 8y agoThis is the sort of thing I was talking about when I mentioned negative externalities elsewhere in this thread. NAT is nice if you want to do things like that, but those sorts of tricks create big problems for people like me. Being behind NAT with multiple external IPs and an unknown policy for which gets used when is a nightmare scenario for P2P applications.
- yardstick 8y agoThe router admin would ideally configure which ISP to use for your P2P traffic, and possibly add some inbound port fowards (if applicable).