5 ms·
Good thing the IEEE recommended against implementing IPv6 NAT and everyone followed that rec- oh, wait.
by suprjami 2y ago
Good thing the IEEE recommended against implementing IPv6 NAT and everyone followed that rec- oh, wait.
- the8472 2y agoIEEE? You mean the IETF? And I explicitly said "many-to-one NATs" to not have to quibble about network-prefix-mapping NATs like NAT66 which are not deployed in coffee shops anyway.
- throw0101c 2y agoStrictly speaking NAT66 does not have any kind of specification, so implementations are 'vendor specific': * https://blogs.infoblox.com/ipv6-coe/you-thought-there-was-no-nat-for-ipv6-but-nat-still-exists/ https://blogs.infoblox.com/ipv6-coe/you-thought-there-was-no... NPTv6 is slightly different in that there really isn't address-port state (though an SPI firewall could track connection state), but the first /64 of the address is swapped about, and everything else should be left alone: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6296 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6296 (Of course I often get grief in networking forums for mentioning NPTv6 because it's "only" an Experimental RFC, and not Standards track.) The main reason to use these mechanisms is either frequent prefix changes or multi-homing, though documents have been written on how to deal with those situations without translation (often in combination with ULA): * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7157 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7157 * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8678 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8678