Dear Dmitry,

30 Jun 21 00:09, you wrote to me:


 DP>>> NPTv6 is the answer (RFC 6296).

 VS>> It's not a good answer. One of the key priorities of IPv6 as
 VS>> touted by its proponents is the end-to-end connectivity, freedom
 VS>> from NAT.

 DP> NAT66 is what NAT for ipv6 is called.

What was the incentive to create such an abomination?

 DP> NPTv6 is not a NAT, it's
 DP> stateless solution.

Even if NPT is called "prefix translation" and is stateless, it is still a NAT (in IPv4 terms, a type of a one-to-one NAT).

However, the creators of IPv6 had better invent something like "dead gateway detection" or some other way for end devices to select a working outgoing address when they have several global prefixes (and gateways) available. I thought my knowledge was lacking, but it turns out the new and flashy protocol stack is lacking.

Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
--- GoldED+/BSD 1.1.5-b20170303-b20170303