Re: IPv4 flag day

[William Herrin via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 10:47 AM sronan--- via NANOG
<nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> The SMB use case is absolutely PAT. They aren’t going to 1:1 NAT all of their internal hosts to both providers 
> provided IPv6 space.

SMB generally buys a box and whatever that box does by default, that's
their network configuration. They pick that box mainly by reputation.
They don't have a network security guy. They don't have a network guy.
They have a couple IT guys whose main areas of expertise are
troubleshooting PC hardware and Windows Domain Controllers.

Enterprise, on the other hand, is definitely going NAT. Renumbering is
painful even with IPv6. And they're very leery of 1:1 NAT -- they've
made security configuration mistakes before and trust 1:many NAT to
offer a layer of protection while those mistakes are detected and
fixed. They take arguments against NAT to mean that IPv6 is not yet
ripe for deployment with the sort of robust security frameworks they
enjoy in IPv4.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/NXMXULZ3J3GTYQHXZTWPQKFNCUUYZSFV/