🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Xns9444C6E5598CBjuergennieveler@nieveler.org>,
Juergen Nieveler  <juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de> wrote:
:roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:

:> Not all NAT implimentations are specific about who they let back in.

:Not to mention that NAT will pass away as soon as everybody is on IPv6

In my opinion, NAT will continue to be used with IPv6. We
-prefer- the behaviour of hiding behind a small number of IP
addresses to the extent practical: there is no point in giving
away information about our internal computer facilities if we do
not need to.

Also, there are other uses for NAT. For example, in order to get
around an ISP filter combined with lack of IPSec at a remote end,
I routed from a remote office over an IPSec tunnel, and NAT
the packets and spit them out on our local net for delivery to
their final destination. The responses come back to our local
IP addresses, the box de-NAT's them back into the remote office
IPs, and those packets get forwarded over the IPSec tunnel to their
proper origin location. This kind of forwarding of network traffic
is not uncommon in facilities with satellite offices. IPv6 would not
help because the ISP is going to continue with that filter no matter
what IP address we use.
-- 
   Reviewers should be required to produce a certain number of
   negative reviews - like police given quotas for handing out
   speeding tickets.                        -- The Audio Anarchist