Gert,
On 2010-10-26 04:59, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 05:41:30PM +0200, Rémi Després wrote:
>> But, again, many users already use "native" IPv6 (neither 6to4 nor Teredo)
>> and no bomb has exploded.
>> And AFAIK no bomb is timed to explode either.
>
> Please understand that *your* customers are not the type of networks
> Chris Engel talks about. Residential and enterprise are the most distant
> points in a spectrum - residential *wants* e2e and p2p apps, while enterprise
> does *not* want that.
>
> This discussion has been rehashed a number of times now, and it's time
> that the "anti-NAT" crowd starts to accept that e2e is not a desirable
> property in some networks, and thus, this aspect of NAT doesn't do "harm".
The problem comes when one of the ends tries to participate in
a multi-party protocol. The state that a NAPT creates to permit
a two-party protocol to work isn't able to support a third party.
So, people whose model of connection to the Internet only involves
two-party client-server protocols can use the arguments Chris Engel
has expressed, but if they want multi-party protocols they have to
start using some kind of kludge. (I am including things like ICE
in the category "kludge".)
Has anyone analysed how stateless NAT66 will impact multi-party
applications? Since it doesn't break address uniqueness, there
may be hope.
Brian
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
