<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>Hi,</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 26 Mar 2015, at 14:37, Sanjeev Gupta <<a href="mailto:ghane0@gmail.com" class="">ghane0@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Roman Mamedov <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:rm@romanrm.net" target="_blank" class="">rm@romanrm.net</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br class="">
NAT66 is not (and should not be) common, however there is no harm in doing an<br class="">
inobtrusive check to see if it's deployed, or to collect stats on the scale of<br class="">
such deployments.</blockquote></div><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_extra">I am part of a team deploying IPv6 in S E Asia, for enterprises in their offices. As we do not have clarity on who the ISP will be, and this will change frequently till v6 availability stabilises, use of ULA is common. A NAT66 device is used much a normal IPv4 NAT gateway; the NAT66 means that if the upstream IPv6 prefix address changes, all the PCs do ot end up with new addresses.<br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Technically, I think you mean NPTv6, as per RFC 6296.</div><div class="">It’s disappointing but not unexpected that sites are doing this.</div><div class="">The homenet approach is that hosts are multi-addressed with ULA and globals. They use ULAs internally, which provides a decent level of renumbering protection, and globals externally.</div><div class="">Having a single IP address is IPv4 thinking.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Tim</div></body></html>