[olug] Ipv6 help/pointers

[Lou Duchez]

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.