From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "ams-iport-1.cisco.com", Issuer "Cisco SSCA2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81BC721F1B0 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:44:00 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIIANNByFCQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABFg0i7WhZzgh4BAQQBeRALDjhXBi6HcAa8QpAtYQOmT4J0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,265,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="148150303" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2012 08:43:58 +0000 Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-117-91.cisco.com (dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-117-91.cisco.com [10.147.117.91]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBC8hvgO008375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:43:58 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= In-Reply-To: <50C83EEF.8000601@openwrt.org> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:43:57 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <8F973FF7-B39D-4E21-B889-14F6105A29F4@employees.org> <21D9A278-EBD5-4148-AA3E-073AC93451B4@employees.org> <50C83EEF.8000601@openwrt.org> To: Steven Barth X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Current state of ipv6 in openwrt barrier breaker X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:44:01 -0000 Steven, >> I'd really like us to avoid that. it is going to be so hard to get = NPT out of the network again. >> it also forces applications to continue with STUN/TURN and all that = stuff to discover global addresses >> that can be used for referrals. please let us keep the end to end = properties of IPv6 intact. >=20 > Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you from a technical and ideological = standpoint. However I don't think it would be wise - at least as an = OpenWrt developer - to force any of this ideology onto users. IPv6 NAT = made it into the Linux kernel so I guess there are some legitimate = use-cases, so at least I don't want to be the guy assuming I know better = then the people who implemented, requested and accepted these features. >=20 > I'd rather have it implemented and more or less supported in the most = sane way possible then people hacking it in on their own. >=20 > However as I said I feel the need to have reasonable defaults and make = it easy (easier?) to use the standards-compliant way than to use NAT. = Thats where I can be reasoned with ;) oh absolutely. there is a need for IPv6 NAT. particularly around = multihoming to non-congruent networks, even in the home. (this would of course be a lot prettier with ILNP, IPv6 NATs, better = looking cousin.) I'm only arguing against having IPv6 NAT as the default solution. cheers, Ole=