Subj : NAT
To   : Victor Sudakov
From : Markus Reschke
Date : Sun Jan 27 2019 13:49:30

Hi Victor!

Jan 27 15:08 2019, Victor Sudakov wrote to Markus Reschke:

 VS> Good point. Thank you. Maybe fc00::/7 has a chance of becoming the 
 VS> new 192.168/16.

I'd recommend to use fd00::/8 since fc00::/8 was meant to be some kind of globally unique local address space managed by a registry (-> B2B VPNs).    

 VS> I don't think enterprise-class firewalls have UPnP, do they?

Most don't. But you never know what e-junk some company uses. >:)

 VS> And thinking about SOHO and home routers/firewalls, what kind of IPv6 
 VS> connectivity are they going to have, what do you think? Those present 
 VS> who have native IPv6 connectivity, what's your ISP's policy on 
 VS> assigning addresses to customers?

/64 as xfer network and a /56 for the LAN (both dynamic, forced change every 6 months).

 VS> Interesting. Do you know of any implementations that could translate 
 VS> ULA addresses into one global /64 pool?

Cisco, Juniper, Linux, ... 
However, you need to check the details for each box and firmware. For example, Linux can hide the complete LAN behind a single IPv6 address.   

ciao,
Markus

--- 
 * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)

.