Re: NAT

[Pascal Hambourg <pascal.mail@plouf.fr.eu.org>]

Ivan Shmakov a écrit :
> 
> 	Somehow, I thought that DNAT will solve the problem the most
> 	straightforward way.  I was wrong, it was proxy_arp that made
> 	the day.

Agreed.

>  (Yes, one may use a bridge, too

Yup.

> 	Anyway, IPv4 seems to die slowly.  The Internet Service Provider
> 	I connect through from home, for example, offers a
> 	gray-IP-plus-NAT access, which is barely the /Internet/ access

What is "gray IP" ? RFC 1918 private addressing ?

> 	Fortunately, IPv6 has no NAT.

Unfortunately, some people want a NAT implementation for IPv6. I guess
that they have always lived in a NAT environment they view as a
protection, and would feel so naked without it. NAT is not a part of the
IPv4 specification, it is just a hack and it could be implemented for
IPv6 too. Now that netfilter has IPv6 conntrack, I guess that it could
be done in Linux. However the netfilter developpers do not want to add
IPv6 NAT and I support this decision, although IPv6 NAT could be a
helpful quick and dirty hack in a some situations (e.g. source NAT to
work around some flaws in the source address selection).