""" Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is being able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address conservation. It has no good use in IPv6. """ NAT still has its uses; virtualization and cloud infrastructure being one of the most legitimate. Certain kinds of NAT, such as RFC 6296, are very useful, and one of the best methods we have today of delivering IPv6 to smaller networks who wish to have private address space internally ... be it for consistency, ISP independence, multi-homing, or just downright operational parity. I really think all this focus on anti-NAT talk has held-back adoption (and FWIW I used to be one of the people banging the anti-NAT drum the loudest). Keep in mind the collective attitude in communities like this one about NAT for v6 trickles down into decisions made elsewhere; the Linux Netfilter team, for example, is met by a lot of hostility when they talk about including things like 6296 in ip6tables; and as a result it's been left out (even though it's functional). -- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/