Hi, On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:59:04AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 04/18/2014 12:57 AM, Enno Rey wrote:
I fully second Sander's input. I've been involved in IPv6 planning in a number of very large enterprises now and_none_ of them required/asked for (66/overloading) NAT for their firewall environments. A few think about very specific deployments of NPTv6 like stuff for connections to supplier/partner networks (to map those to their own address space) but these are corner cases not even relevant for their "firewalls".
How many of those networks were implementing with IPv6 PI space?
all of them My
experience has been that those customers are not interested in IPv6 NAT, but instead utilize network segmentation to define "internal" vs. "external."
OTOH, customers for whom PI space is not realistic (for whatever reasons, and yes there are reasons) are very interested in the combination of ULA + NTPv6 to handle internal resources without having to worry about renumbering down the road.
true. it's just we don't see many of those (actually I've yet to encounter a single one) and it could be debatable if they belong to "Enterprise" networks (which is in the title of the ID). best Enno
Doug
-- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================