Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Why is Keith so desperately wedged on one particular means of achieving his > objective? > because it's by far the simplest and most reliable means available. > It is entirely possible to make peer to peer applications work well with NAT, > it is entirely possible even to make a server application work well with NAT. > it is possible. it is also much more complex to make things work that way, much more expensive, harder to make such applicaitons scalable, and much harder to diagnose problems when they crop up. > We are running out of IPv4 addresses and it is clear that IPv6 is not going > to deploy fast enough to allow people to dispense with IPv4 before the > exhaustion point is reached. Unless someone happens to have a working time > machine handy the only plausible means of getting two billion plus users to > attach multiple devices to the IPv4 Internet is for some devices to share an > address. That means some form of NAT. > NAT is a given in IPv4. no argument there. > I don't see any reason to expect that my personal Internet needs should > require more than an IPv6 /96 and an IPv4 /38. That is 256 ports worth of > pooled IPv4 connectivity. > there you go trying to impose your personal needs on the entire Internet again. > New application protocols are required to be I2.0 compliant, that means using > the DNS as their service discovery mechanism including advertising the > IPv4/v6 transition support. > and I see you're also trying to saddle the entire Internet with 1970s peer discovery technology.
Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
