[strongSwan] Query reg UDP encapsulation for IPv6
trymes at rymes.com
Wed Apr 15 16:28:09 CEST 2015
On 04/15/2015 10:15 AM, Ruel, Ryan wrote:
> I believe the idea is that for IPv6, NAT will not be needed (that's the
> beauty of having so much address space!).
> Technically, sure, you could NAT IPv6. But why?
Perhaps the best reason to address this is that the exact same thing
would have been said about IPv4 back in the day, so addressing this
issue now might make sense as a way of future-proofing things.
More information about the Users