On 4-okt-2007, at 14:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> I would be interested to know how many people favor
each of the
> following approaches. Feel free to send me private
email and I'll
> summerize.
I only got three replies, which don't really support drawing
many
conclusions.
> 1. Keep NAT and ALGs out of IPv6 and use additional
protocols
> between hosts and firewalls to open
"pinholes" in firewalls (where
> appropriate/allowed, such as in consumer installations)
to avoid ALGs
+ +
> 2. Keep NAT out of IPv6 but use ALGs to bypass
firewalls
_
> 3. Come up with a standard way of doing 1-to-1 NAT (no
PAT) in IPv6
> 4. Come up with a standard way of doing NAT/PAT in
IPv6
+
> 5. Everyone do whatever suits their needs like what
happened in IPv4
-
Interestingly, nobody seems to like option 3.
> And: if people start using NAT in IPv6 I will:
> a. Implement ALGs and application workarounds to
accommodate it
"don't want to but we'll have to if it comes to
this" x 2
unqualified x 1
> b. Not do anything, it's their problem if stuff breaks
"would prefer this if it were up to me" x 1
> c. Break stuff that goes through IPv6 NAT on purpose to
prove a point
-
|
