3 ms·
The existence of NAT66 and NPTv6 are proof that there is still a need for NAT in an ipv6 environment. Maybe not in your environment, but people wouldn't make th
by ta1243 3y ago
The existence of NAT66 and NPTv6 are proof that there is still a need for NAT in an ipv6 environment. Maybe not in your environment, but people wouldn't make these solutions if there wasn't a need.
- robertlagrant 3y agoThere's certainly a requirement for them, but it would be good to know what the justification of that requirement was before we know if there's a need. E.g. the justification could be "our SOPs say all network traffic must go through NAT", and if you dig deeper you might find that the SOP was written to save money on IPv4 addresses. That would not indicate a fundamental need.
- ta1243 3y ago> There's certainly a requirement for them Thus proving that ipv6 failed in it's mission to get rid of nat
- robertlagrant 3y agoI don't think this is a useful thing to say. If I keep trying to fill up my electric car with petrol, and get so annoyed that it keeps spilling on the floor that I pay someone to install a petrol cap and fuel tank, it would be equally silly to say that electric cars failed in their mission to get rid of petrol use.
- Retric 3y agoNAT works well as an ultra simple firewall. All those ancient IoT devices don’t need to accept traffic from arbitrary addresses, but they may need to communicate with the outside world. Using a firewall is obviously an option, but why give an IP to something you don’t want accessible by the outside world?
- lxgr 3y ago> NAT works well as an ultra simple firewall. There's something that works even better as an ultra simple firewall: An ultra simple firewall! > why give an IP to something you don’t want accessible by the outside world? - You might change your mind about it needing to be accessible by the outside world, and if it already has a global address you don't need to renumber everything. - Addressing and routing aren't the same thing; it can be useful to have globally unique addressing even without global reachability.
- Retric 3y agoUltra simple firewalls that expose your internal network architecture are less secure than NAT. You simply cannot information about your internal network without risk and there’s zero direct benefit for doing so.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> The existence of NAT66 and NPTv6 are proof that there is still a need for NAT in an ipv6 environment The existence of fridges with twitter integration proves that there is a need to a Lettice to tweet. There are all kinds of things that exist, steam-powered motorbike among them. Not all of them exist for the right reasons.
- thelastparadise 3y agoOne such use case: multi wan routing. Would you rather have a bunch of routers sending out advertisements which every client needs to sort out, or have one consistent multi wan load balancing/failover policy that is transparent to clients?
- ta1243 3y agoIPv6 purists think that you can simple have multiple IP addresses on each client, all configured magically, and reconfigured transparently when your ISP changes, with every device somehow knowing via some form of policy deployment (perhaps via dhcpv6) which network to use for a given flow. That's so much simpler than simple src-natting your clients at the edge of your control and routing your outgoing traffic based on a policy at your natting device /s
- elsjaako 3y agoThere's obviously a need, I didn't deny that. I'm not arguing for ipv6, I just want to learn. The uses that I found while searching weren't very convincing, I was hoping you could give an example.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lxgr 3y agoNetwork sharing from a device that has only a single IPv6 /128 address comes to mind.