Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:48:02 +0200 From: Mark Martinec <Mark.Martinec+freebsd@ijs.si> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD =?UTF-8?Q?=3F=20-=20does?= =?UTF-8?Q?=20it=20have=20one=20=3F?= Message-ID: <444fc5248aaa7d474cf9bde66f3d7f64@mailbox.ijs.si> In-Reply-To: <201407291320.s6TDK5ZS005328@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <201407291320.s6TDK5ZS005328@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
me wrote: > we are talking about NAT64 (IPv6-only datacenter's path to a legacy > world), > and NPT66 (prefix transalation). I doubt anyone had a traditional NAT > in mind. Kevin Oberman wrote: > No, all of the messages in the thread are specific about NAT66, not > NPT66. > NPT66 may have real value. I hate it, but it may well be better than > alternatives. [...] Cy Schubert wrote: > That I don't disagree with, IPv6 NAT makes no logical sense. Having > said > that I've received emails asking about NAT66 specifically. It is on > people's minds. My impression is that often the term NAT66 is used indiscriminately, even when NPT66 (static prefix translation) is meant. Mark
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?444fc5248aaa7d474cf9bde66f3d7f64>