North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote: > > >By focussing on the mechanics of inbound NAT traversal, you're > >ignoring the fact that applications work regardless. Web, VoIP, > >P2P utilities, games, IM, Google Earth, you name it, it works. > > O really? When was the last time you successfully transferred a file > using IM? It only works half the time for me and I don't even use NAT > on my main system myself. Some audio/video chat applications work > well, others decidedly less so. The only reason most stuff works most > of the time is because applications tell NAT devices to open up > incoming ports using uPnP or NAT-PMP. "Ah, god damn Microsoft MSN client. Just send it via gmail already." People deal with slightly broken crap all day, every day. If they had a low tolerance for it then we'd be running OSF/1+Motif on multi-core Alphas cause Windows on whiteboxes wouldn't have cut the mustard. > Right. Building something that can't meet reasonable requirements > first and then getting rid of the holes worked so well for the email > spam problem. Ah, but: * y'all didn't know what were reasonable requirements when SMTP was built; and * You're not trying to do a forklift upgrade of SMTP protocol (which, arguably, would include reasonable anti-spam methods!) Whereas: * Y'all know the issues involved in migrating from ipv4 to ipv6, as you've got operational experience with both now, and * You're trying to do a forklift upgrade of the IP protocol. Adrian
|