Subj : NAT
To   : Markus Reschke
From : Victor Sudakov
Date : Sun Jan 27 2019 21:12:10

Dear Markus,

27 Jan 19 13:49, you wrote to me:

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

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

fc00::/7 is from RFC4193, and where is fd00::/8 defined?

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

 MR> 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
 VS>> IPv6 connectivity are they going to have, what do you think?
 VS>> Those present who have native IPv6 connectivity, what's your
 VS>> ISP's policy on assigning addresses to customers?

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

If you want a static address?

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

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

That's nice.

Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
--- GoldED+/BSD 1.1.5-b20160322-b20160322
 * Origin: Ulthar (2:5005/49)

.