In all reality: 1. NAT has nothing to do with security. Stateful inspection provides security, NAT just mangles addresses. 2. In the places where NAT works, it does so at a terrible cost. It breaks a number of things, and, applications like Skype are incredibly more complex pieces of code in order to solve NAT traversal. The elimination of NAT is one of the greatest features of IPv6. Most customers don't know or care what NAT is and wouldn't know the difference between a NAT firewall and a stateful inspection firewall. I do think that people will get rid of the NAT box by and large, or, at least in IPv6, the box won't be NATing. Whether or not they NAT it, it's still better to give the customer enough addresses that they don't HAVE to NAT. Owen On Jul 22, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Akyol, Bora A wrote:
As long as customers believe that having a NAT router/"firewall" in place is a security feature, I don't think anyone is going to get rid of the NAT box.
In all reality, NAT boxes do work for 99% of customers out there.
Bora
On 7/22/10 7:34 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Well, wouldn't it be better if the provider simply issued enough space to make NAT66 unnecessary?
Owen