Hi,
Thus wrote Fred Baker ([email protected]):
> Thanks for the comment I picked up the first, which is an obvious typo. Your
> suggested text changes the last sentence of 5.1 and adds "it's a trade-off".
> I understand you to be trying to say "NPTv6 is likely to prevent you from
> running certain applications." I'll point out that the use of NAPT has not
> prevented folks from running applications; it has made it a lot harder, and
> they have had to work around the NAPT, but it has meant that they move the
> applications to zones in their network designed to handle them. NPTv6 allows
> them to do the same within the privately-addressed parts of their network,
> which seems like a benefit, and in general if they have both the internal and
> external addresses of peers and are using "Happy Eyeballs" technology (so
> that they in fact use whatever address works), the user experience will be
> the same as a network without translation. So I don't agree that it's as much
> of a barrier as you seem to think it is.
I seem to have utterly failed to get my point across. Let me try again:
Which applications will have trouble with address stability and
provider independence, thus requiring you to make the benefits of NPTv6
line up with the applications you want to use??
regards,
spz
--
[email protected] (S.P.Zeidler)
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
