Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 16/03/2014 05:16, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2014-03-15 00:31, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 15/03/2014 10:29, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>> Le 13/03/2014 15:27, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
>>> [...]
>>>> It's true that those that want IPv6 to be exactly like IPv4 are
>>>> disappointed, because IPv6 is not IPv4. No, you can't do routing without
>>>> RAs. No, you can't "save addresses" by making host subnets /120s (at
>>>> least not easily). No, there is no RFC1918. No, ULAs are not the same as
>>>> RFC1918. No, there is no NAT.
>>> Yes there is IPv6 NAT an dit works just like in IPv4.
>> We can't make it illegal, but we have already made it unnecessary.
> 
> Unnecessary for connection normal hosts, but let me admit, that I
> recently found a situation where it was actually useful to have Linux's
> NAT function for IPv6: forwarding connections in a proxy-style method.
> 
> This way I was able to setup a load-balanced forwarding setup for
> various services without having to modify the backend systems to
> understand a special header (eg X-Forwarded-For) for proper tracking of
> too-many-connections and mere logging.

Try RFC 7098?

   Brian

> 
> Note that the backend boxes actually do have their own global IPv6
> address, one might just not want to expose to the world all the time.
> 
> As such, NAT has it's uses; they just should not be forced upon
> end-users by the providers that they are using.
> 
> More annoyingly are the providers that will force-change your IP address
> space every 24 hours; which will make people want to have NAT to avoid
> renumbering.... and with 6rd, which is dependent on the IPv4 address,
> this is already a reality in quite some places unfortunately.
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 
>