Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it

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

On 16/03/2014 05:50, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2014-03-15 09:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> [..]
>>> 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?
> 
> The flow-label would just add an extra tracking parameter in the NAT or
> maybe better said 'connection tracker/translator' table.
> 
> I thus see little gain in adding something like that.

You don't add it to NAT. You use it for load balancing with
native global addressing, so that you don't need NAT.

> Also I don't know of any device actually having support for that.

Yes, it's a relatively new RFC, but it was reviewed by load
balancer people.

   Brian