Ted Lemon a écrit :
On Aug 13, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
Gotcha: So you're saying "if you're behind a CGN (doing v4v4 NAT or
v6v4 NAT), you get 100 ports. But if you are doing native v6, you
get 64K ports. Your massive port-consuming p2p application will
work better with 64K ports".
Am I characterising that correctly?
Just about. I was also making the additional point that this provides
a meaningful incentive to the end-user to go dual-stack.
and that with v6, you are not hidden by default (only by firewall policy
if desired), therefore it makes servers (ie. a listening port) more
easier to deploy. think about SIP today... I've been involved in voipv6
and it is 10 times simpler to deploy for that reason.
Marc.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
