Hello, Victor!

Thursday July 01 2021 20:31, you wrote to me:

 VS> The original IPv4 was also miserable with its classful networks, RIPv1
 VS> etc. I still cannot imagine however what "real life" problem they are
 VS> solving by creating NAT for ipv6.

For example - rerouting traffic via VPN to get thru RKN's DPI.
Real life scenario :)

 DP>> translation. It's much more lightweight and easy to implement.

 VS> Either you translate only the higher 64 bits of the address, or the
 VS> whole 128 bits of the address, you still rewrite the packet. True, you
 VS> don't do PAT, that's why I said that it looks like a one-to-one IPv4
 VS> NAT (much like in AWS VPC "public" subnets).

Yeah, but you can have "host" part the same for several uplinks and change prefix only on NPTv6 gateway.
It's the best ipv6 can offer for you, sorry.

 VS> Nope, but I think $subj can be implemented today, e.g. via some field
 VS> in RAs etc. In FreeBSD (and I'm sure in other IPv6 implementations)
 VS> you can select the prerred source address, you only have to add some
 VS> way to change it automatically when a "dead gateway" is detected.

It adds more complexity and cannot be implemented easily in userland across multiple OSes.


Best regards,
             dp.

--- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707