Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:10:02 +0100 From: Chrisy Luke <chrisy@flix.net> To: Philippe Regnauld <regnauld@deepo.prosa.dk> Cc: Paul Emerson <paul@gta.com>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipv6 network addresses Message-ID: <19980602111002.31706@flix.net> In-Reply-To: <19980602105525.36962@deepo.prosa.dk>; from Philippe Regnauld on Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 10:55:25AM %2B0200 References: <199806012000.QAA14487@gta.gta.com> <19980602092305.52419@flix.net> <19980602105525.36962@deepo.prosa.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Philippe Regnauld wrote (on Jun 02): > Good NAT solutions use a pool of addresses (i.e.: Cisco), > where hosts seem to come from different addresses each time). > This also allow for semi-permanent "two-way" setups, allowing > for example ftp back-connect and other horrible things transparently. Where's the FreeBSD implementation then? :-) > It depends how big a fish you are. If you get your block of > addresses from your provider, like I do, and interconnect > the networks of some 8 different organization, then you don't > want to have to renumber if you leave. This is true, but I still find NAT a hammer-and-nut solution, but I sympathise with that predicament. However, as I understood it, IPv6 addresses will be relatively freely available (as compared to IPv4) and so anyone that suspects they may need to renumber sometime in the future can get them from day one, without the requirement of being multihomed or any such. > and there's a fat chance > you'll get router with less than /22, provided you had your own > block in the first place. Yes, but we're talking IPv6 here.. :-) Chris. -- == chris@easynet.net, chrisy@flix.net, chrisy@flirble.org. == Head of Systems for Easynet Group PLC. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980602111002.31706>