Re: Verison IPv6 -- I want to stick with IPv4 (was Re: ipv6: static ipv6 address with dynamic network address possible?)
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 10:35:44AM +0000, Marco wrote:
> Am Tue, 2 Aug 2022 23:02:12 +0000
> schrieb Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>:
>
> > Why do you believe that having their customer premises equipment do
> > this for v6 is any different from having it do default NAT for v4?
>
> It is additional work and it breaks certain protocols. IPv6 doesn't
> need NAT, so why should an ISP do it?
I think you have misread my email and we are in agreement. If you go
back and look at what you first replied to, you will see that it
basically says "while IPv6 NAT is POSSIBLE, I think they will just
add a default packet filter for IPv6, and indeed the router at the
place I am at right now is doing this".
In this second reply, because you had said that no ISP will do
"this" (without saying what "this" is), I thought you were arguing
that there will be no IPv6 firewall. So my question was "why do you
think having an IPv6 firewall is more costly than having an IPv4
one?".
At no point did I suggest that IPv6 NAT would be set up by the ISP.
In fact I was saying the opposite, like you. And then showed that I
was on a connection that had NAT for IPv4 but just a packet filter
for IPv6.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Reply to: