On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 11:07:58AM +0530, Imran Patel wrote:
> > On the contrary, it might be useful for transition from IPv4 to IPv6 ;-)
> > IPv6 connection tracking is useful for NAT-PT. However, other options on top
> > of IPv6 conntrack like masquerading, v6-v6 NAT, etc look useless and silly.
> You forget real world. I bet ISPs will continue to only give a single IPv6
> address to their dialup customers, so masquerading will stay ...
This is feared by many. However, there is some very strict wording
against this in IESG address allocation policy, which is being approved by
As there are no huge technical or address allocational reasons why ISP's
could not give at least /64, those ISP's that do get more popular and ones
dealing /128's do not, and disappear from IPv6 market.
So I think this will sort itself out by "natural means" ...
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords