[clug] IPv6 for home

[Bob Edwards]

On 01/01/12 13:45, Francis James Whittle wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-01-01 at 12:52 +1100, Michael Still wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I think I wasn't clear here though. Is there any tangible
>> advantage to going and getting a netblock assigned to my house? Is it
>> exciting in some way I can't imagine to have each machine on the
>> network have an permanent externally routable IP?
>>
>
> Yes - NAT sucks.  This is the case at the ISP level *and* the
> subscriber level.  The people who designed IPv6 would like NAT killed
> with fire.  Any device in your home that you want to be able to talk to
> the IPv6 internet ought to have an externally routable IPv6 address.
>
>

Of course, it is mainly the IPv6 protagonists who insist that NAT sucks.
NAT has (almost) single-handledly delayed the need for IPv6 by at least
a decade so far and it will probably keep doing so for some time yet.
Very frustrating for the IPv6 lobby.

And NAT is really not all that dissimilar to application layer proxies
(like squid etc.) or gateways (e-mail etc.) Just more automatic and
"transparent".

And of course, there is nothing (other than IPSec) stopping you from
doing NAT with IPv6, if such a thing takes your fancy...

I really don't think NAT sucks at all...

Cheers,

Bob Edwards.