"Eugene M. Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I'm afraid this whole series of argument is somewhat misled. Pardon me
|if the whole IPv6 landscape has changed while I was asleep, but I always
|thought that the main goal of IPv6 is not to replace IPv4, IPv4+NAT, or
|anything that stands well-established today.
I've sort of lost track of the main goal of IPv6; what is it? This particular
thread was about whether it _can_ replace IPv4+NAT, which clearly it can't
given its current capabilities. As you point out, this may be of no import
whatsoever since IPv6 isn't going to replace IPv4+NAT...
|If some of you want to say those limitations are not really important to
|most NAT users, just talk to anyone who played StartCraft behind her NAT
|box and got frustrated how she and her boyfriend can't play online at
|the same time because only one machine behind the NAT box can connect to
|the Blizzard's game server.
But this is not a limitation created by NAT! The problem comes about
simply because the ISP is providing only a single public address for
NAT to work with. If the ISP provided two public addresses then two
people on two machines could play at once with or without NAT. When
the ISP provides only a single address then only one user can play,
with *or without* NAT. As I mentioned before, it is a testament to
just how well NAT simulates a routed network that people start blaming
it for external restrictions that it could not possibly work around.
|No need to stir up the trouble by shouting `Hey folks,
|you're all doomed in a sinking ship, whose name is IPv4!'
Suits me...
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
