On Monday April 15 2013 12:32:37 Lev Serebryakov wrote: > And, yes, NAT64 will be useful for sure, but it is another story, > not IPv6<->IPv6 translation.
Fear not, NPT66 prefix translation is stateless, this is nothing like NAT44 / NAPT. On Monday April 15 2013 12:51:00 sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > We are *way* too late in the game to completely avoid IPv6 NAT. > Various flavors already exist in the form of RFCs, e.g. NPTv6: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296 Prefix translation is useful for SOHO or branch offices with more than one uplink, unless one wants to invest into AS and BGP or start building tunnels: http://blog.ioshints.info/2011/12/we-just-might-need-nat66.html Mark _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
