On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > I’d argue that SSH is several thousand, not a few hundred. In any case, I > suppose you can make the argument that only a few people are trying to access > their home network resources remotely other than via some sort of > proxy/rendezvous service. However, I would argue that such services exist > solely to provide a workaround for the deficiencies in the network introduced > by NAT. Get rid of the stupid NAT and you no longer need such services.
This is an interesting argument/point, but if you remove the rendevous service then how do you find the thing in your house? now the user has to manage DNS, or the service in question has to manage a dns entry for the customer, right? you'll be moving the (some of the) pain from 'nat' to 'dns' (or more generally naming and identification). I think though that in a better world, a service related to the thing you want to prod from outside would manage this stuff for you. It's important (I think) to not simplify the discussion as: "Oh, with ipv6 magic happens!" because there are still problems and design things to overcome even with unhindered end-to-end connectivity.
