[olug] Ipv6 help/pointers

Lou Duchez lou at paprikash.com
Sun Jul 28 01:47:33 UTC 2013

On 7/27/2013 9:27 AM, Kevin D. Snodgrass wrote:
>> From: Obi-Wan <obiwan at jedi.com>
>> To: Omaha Linux User Group <olug at olug.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 4:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: [olug] Ipv6 help/pointers
>> On 07/24/2013 04:27 PM, Lou Duchez wrote:
>>> IPv6:
>>> your ISP won't be providing an IP address so much as a 64-bit network
>>> space
>>> router will not perform NAT -- 128-bit addresses contain enough
>>> information to be routable on both the private and public sides
>>> router will still perform most of its usual functions -- gateway,
>>> firewall, etc -- it just won't need NAT to perform them
>> So does this mean that IPv6 CAN'T do NAT, even if you wanted to for
>> security obfuscation?  I'd really rather the rest of the world not know
>> anything about the internals of my home network.
> Note: I have exactly 0 IPv6 experience...
> Can't you setup your residential router to be IPv6 on the internet side and
> DHCP/nat IPv4 addresses on the inside, so basically the only difference is the
> *router* gets an IPv6?
>  From the presentation that was giving at an OLUG meeting (last year I think) I
> got the impression that IPv6 meant all devices were "visible" outside your DMZ.
> I *LIKE* not having to setup iptables or whatever on every machine in my living
> room data center. :-)  Makes life so much less complicated...
> FWIW, my router has exactly 0 ports open to the outside.
> Kevin D. Snodgrass
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug

I don't have any actual experience with IPv6, I'm just going off what 
I'm reading.  So I don't know a darn thing about this topic, really.  
I've looked around to see if anyone is talking about a scenario like 
you're describing, and I'm not seeing it, possibly because I don't know 
to recognize it when I see it.  So I can't say that I've seen evidence 
of it being an option, but it certainly seems possible.

The biggest barrier I think I'm seeing is that IPv6 proponents are 
hostile to the idea of NAT: they typically don't see why it should be 
supported or preserved.  They seem to view NAT as a foreign element that 
ruined the elegance of the IPv4 architecture, which it might be, but 
it's also a darn useful foreign element.  There are some scenarios where 
NATless IPv6 would certainly help (like SIP) but that doesn't mean NAT 
wouldn't still have its uses.

More information about the OLUG mailing list