On 7/3/25 07:59, Ondřej Caletka wrote:
On 07/03/2025 11:30, Fernando Gont wrote:
In a lot of scenarios -- despite rather religious claims against that direction -- you may solve the problem as suggested doing NAT for IPv6. (particularly if this is one of the many problems you have on your table to solve, as is the case for many organizations)).
I think it is also worth mentioning that this is by no means a problem with IPv6. Solving the same issue on IPv4 would be exactly as complex as any solution on IPv6.
The only difference is that on IPv4 we generally don't care about end-to-end principle, while in IPv6 we try to preserve it as much as possible. Which is probably a good thing, but if this prevent us from deploying IPv6, then I would say it is still better to have some reachability to IPv6-only resources, be it via a proxy server (these ancient protocols still exist!) or some sort of NAT than to have no IPv6 reachability at all.
Agreed on that. One of the interesting bits is that in IPv4, NATs have been embraced as a solution to the problem at hand. Whereas in the IPv6 world NATs are generally demonized, while we don't bite the bullet to address the problem at hand (without employing NATs or the like). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494