[strongSwan] Query reg UDP encapsulation for IPv6
rruel at akamai.com
Thu Apr 16 01:22:53 CEST 2015
Future proof in what way?
IPv4 addresses are 32 bits long and number about
7009430000000000000♠4.3×109 (4.3 billion).
IPv6 addresses are 128 bits long and number about
NAT was built as a stop-gap measure due to the limitation in the number of
addresses with IPv4. It happens to be quite effective, but not without
it's many problems.
With IPv6, we are talking about an unimaginable amount of addresses! Why
would we want to re-introduce the pain of NAT?
On 4/15/15, 10:28 AM, "Tom Rymes" <trymes at rymes.com> wrote:
>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.
>Users mailing list
>Users at lists.strongswan.org
More information about the Users