14 May
2017
14 May
'17
6:47 a.m.
On 14/05/2017 8:24 PM, Rob Janssen wrote:
Yes of course NAT is a pain when doing special things,
but for most
internet
users it is not a problem at all. Especially now that the internet
has evolved
from a peer-to-peer network into a traditional client-server network
where a few
big companies run all the services and the users connect only to
there, even when
they want to communicate with another user.
Yes, the general architecture of the
Internet has changed for most people.
What I like about IPv6 is that it gives me out-of-band management of IPv4
networks. Yesterday I did a major restructuring of our AMPRnet-Internet
gateway, where a MikroTik CCR has been added to the existing PC Linux
solution to
take over part of the services, and I could make all the network
topology changes
with confidence that I would not lock myself out, using IPv6. That is
also handy
when managing the very complicated IPv4 firewall.
Yes, I can see that being very
handy. IPv6 topology tends to be less
convoluted than IPv4. :)
In fact so many users have been completely accustomed to NAT that they
even apply
it to AMPRnet... Putting their systems on RFC1918 addresses and
translating it to
net-44 addresses in the router. I would not do that...
Urk, what a horrible solution!
I also like the idea I saw a few posts back of using IPv6 to carry
AMPRnet IPv4 traffic where possible/desired. Would save me having to
rely on putting the gateway in the DMZ of the router on IPv4. I've run
native IPv6 for many years here.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com