On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:25:07PM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote: > I read about it in the following article earlier this year. > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/31/ipv6_sucks_for_smes/ Everybody except a few zealots have accepted the fact that NAT will exist in ipv6 just like v4. The difference is that you are no longer forced into using NAT by address scarcity, you get to choose if you want to use it or not.
That article paints a picture of NAT as some kind of silver bullet that solves everything; I'll not bother arguing against that. The article also completely misses some of the proposed solutions, like running multiple prefixes for multihoming, and having a ULA prefix for internal communication and a dynamically assigned global one for external connectivity. Yes, you get to change DNS entries for your publicly-accessible hosts when you change ISPs if you use provider allocated addresses - how does NAT help with this again, except add the extra work of changing NAT translation rules?
