RE: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales)

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

> Absence of NAT seems like a feature to me.  
Only if IETF would fix multi-hop multi-prefix solution for the business site. Home Networking WG did fail. SHIM6 failed 
too.
Till that time, NAT is the only solution for business.
Wed/
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Kirch via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 17:50
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: Andrew Kirch <trelane () trelane net>
Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales)

On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 6:00 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG < nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> Multi-prefix, SP address delegation through the site, absence of NAT.

Absence of NAT seems like a feature to me.  Fixing things to work with NAT has been, and continues to be incredibly 
expensive.
NAT provides little to no value in IPv6 because it is not scarcity driven.
Eliminating NAT is a net-benefit of IPv6.

Andrew
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/VN6EHSOEMDMAZYS2IR6SNUNWQ6K5LLZA/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/WGDGEI6VOCPHIS3WAKA6Q3QEKCDHK5Y4/