In article <cistron.Pine.LNX.4.44.0310291228200.29539-100000@login1.fas.h arvard.edu>, Scott McGrath <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

...

And sometimes you use NAT because you really do not want the NAT'ed device to be globally addressible but it needs to have a link to the outside to download updates. Instrument controllers et.al.

I don't understand. What is the difference between a /24 internal NATted network, and a /64 internal IPv6 network that is firewalled off: only paclets to the outside allowed, and packets destined for the inside need to have a traffic flow associated with it.

As I see it, NAT is just a stateful firewall of sorts. A broken one, so why not use a non-broken solution ?

You forget the effort required to overcome the inherent inertia of expenditure required to use the non-broken solution...

We can only hope that IPv6 capable CPE devices have that sort of stateful firewalling turned on by default. Or start educating the vendors of these el-cheopo CPE devices so that they will all have that kind of firewalling enabled before IPv6 becomes mainstream.

CPE devices are already available.. POP gear is available. Dedicated access shouldn't be a problem. Forget dial, what's the point.. The gear that worries me is inbetween the PE and the CPE for broadband connections. ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.60"