<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 2, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Dave Taht <<a href="mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com" class="">dave.taht@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">I currently plan to enable some form of ipv6 translation by default in<br class="">the next version of cerowrt - and make direct access optional - (or<br class="">the reverse! I'm easy ) if somehow we get it together enough to<br class="">actually have a way to do a cerowrt-scale effort again.<br class=""><br class="">Any objections here? Suggestions for how to make one of the ipv6<br class="">translation techniques work right?<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">By IPv6 translation, do you mean a NAT66 stateless prefix translation as described in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296" class="">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296</a> ? </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That could be useful for people like me behind a 6RD /60, I wouldn’t mind trying it with an internal ULA and see how it behaves. Not sure how current implementations behave though. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">JF</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>