= Сообщение: 6702 из 7402 ============================================= IPV6 = От : Victor Sudakov 2:5005/49 01 Jul 21 00:19:22 Кому : Dmitry Protasoff 01 Jul 21 00:19:22 Тема : Two ISPs and backup for a home network (dual-homing) FGHI : area://IPV6?msgid=2:5005/49+60dca972 На : area://IPV6?msgid=2:5001/100.1+60db8cbd = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP866 ================================== Ответ: area://IPV6?msgid=2:5001/100.1+60dcd6e7 ============================================================================== 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.
