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

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

> You seem to have no experience with real redundancy. 
The first time I configured Cisco 2500 with ISP redundancy in 1998.
It worked fine: If the link to the primary ISP was down, the office (50 employees company) still have connectivity 
through the other link.
And yes, the office network was not flat - it had many subnets.

Or what you mean by "redundancy"?

IETF is doing everything possible to prevent NAT66.
Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Moock via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> 
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 10:08
To: nanog () lists nanog org
Cc: Marco Moock <mm () dorfdsl de>
Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales)

On 06.11.2025 06:13 Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
wrote:

> > 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.

You seem to have no experience with real redundancy. Those NAT solutions cannot provide it.

You can reach the same situation with NAT66 like with NAT44, if you really want.

Real redundancy solutions exist and certain businesses use it.

--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to abfall1762406007 () stinkedores dorfdsl de
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/YHGQGSFQO6LYFXJ4FPX5CISGN2DSGZPX/