On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > Coping with firewalls is easier than coping with NATs, because at least you > know your public IP address.
Yeah, but you're still going to have to use PCP to acquire explicit maps in the firewall state for your public addresses— because implicit maps alone aren't good enough— and PCP will tell you your external addresses if there is NAPT66 gateway in the loop. It was expressly designed for support NAPT66, so why not use it for that? Besides, applications in the IPv4 world are already coping with NAPT44, so adapting to NAPT66 will be a straightforward transition for them. Wouldn't it be nice for application developers to not have to deal with privacy addressing and multiple provider prefixes and lions and tigers and bears, oh my? Yes, I realize that means that application content providers with big global data centers won't be able to directly address every little sensor device in every home network on the planet, but I'm actually very mindful that some people consider that a desirable feature of network address translation despite what RFC 4864 says on the subject. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, core os networking
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
