4 ms·
Having an extra 1:1 ipv6 NAT for ULA is added complexity that wouldn't be neccessary if you just give out static addresses. Its not like IPv6 /56 subnets are e
by preisschild 2y ago
Having an extra 1:1 ipv6 NAT for ULA is added complexity that wouldn't be neccessary if you just give out static addresses.
Its not like IPv6 /56 subnets are expansive. Just give each customer a full /56 net and you are done.
- matrix2003 2y agoI think the OC was arguing that if your global /64 changes, the firewall rules would change as well for any hosted services. I proposed that you might be able to route the external router’s WAN to a ULA via NAT to save in complexity when the PD changes, but I agree that a static delegation would by far be the easiest. Us home hosters aren’t used to that even though it is technically against the license agreement more often than not.