On 29/07/2014 8:07 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote: ... > And all IPv6 NAT is evil and should be cast into (demonic residence > of your choosing) on sight! For the most part, I agree with you but the problem is "checkbox" comparisons. That IPv6 shouldn't be NAT'd is why I didn't implement it for such a long time. However given the problem that EIDs pose for privacy, I'm of the opinion that maybe NAT66 does have a place but not in the way that the NAT66 RFC prescribes. DarrenReceived on Tue Jul 29 2014 - 07:42:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:51 UTC