Hi, On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:59:04AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 04/18/2014 12:57 AM, Enno Rey wrote: > > I fully second Sander's input. I've been involved in IPv6 planning in a > > number of very large enterprises now and_none_ of them required/asked for > > (66/overloading) NAT for their firewall environments. A few think about > > very specific deployments of NPTv6 like stuff for connections to > > supplier/partner networks (to map those to their own address space) but > > these are corner cases not even relevant for their "firewalls". > > How many of those networks were implementing with IPv6 PI space?
all of them My > experience has been that those customers are not interested in IPv6 NAT, > but instead utilize network segmentation to define "internal" vs. > "external." > > OTOH, customers for whom PI space is not realistic (for whatever > reasons, and yes there are reasons) are very interested in the > combination of ULA + NTPv6 to handle internal resources without having > to worry about renumbering down the road. true. it's just we don't see many of those (actually I've yet to encounter a single one) and it could be debatable if they belong to "Enterprise" networks (which is in the title of the ID). best Enno > > Doug > -- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================
