But if I want a VoIP communication from me (behind a NAT) to some user
behind a NAT, not using a 3rd party location server, how does v4 deliver,
without the receiving user having the pain of port forwarding configuration
on their NAT?
Good point. I experienced that end-users in the
Sorry for posting this comment, I saw the IPv6 Chairs' mail too late.
Christian
--
JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN Christian Strauf
A DFN project Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
http://www.join.uni-muenster.de Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung
Team: [EMAIL
--On Monday, October 20, 2003 00:23:04 -0400 Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly doubt that IPv6 will be available as a software-only upgrade
for any but the latest equipment. There is just too little incentive for
vendors (especially ones who have gone out of business :) to
On 20 okt 2003, at 6:23, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|I don't see the upgrade costs for regular users. Users are by now
|used to upgrading monthly (if not more often) to plug the latest and
|greatest security holes, so a software upgrade to install IPv6
|functionality somewhere in the next three years or
On 2003-10-21 at 03:16, Michel Py wrote:
True, but Teredo is both the best friend and the worst enemy of IPv6.
The best friend because it does indeed enable app developers to develop
IPv6-only apps before IPv6 is largely deployed at ISPs. The worst enemy
because if IPv6-only apps work good
On 2003-10-21 at 14:15, Todd T. Fries wrote:
I'm sorry to reply late to this, but I can't help but realize that
NAT+IPv4 vs IPv6+firewall can be equivalent in `isolation'. Simply
`block in all' and `pass out on $ext_if keep state' (in the pf terms of
OpenBSD) and in two rules you have the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dan Lanciani wrote:
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP
Again, it is not very interesting for the purposes of
determining whether IPv6 can _replace_ IPv4+NAT as suggested.
Even IPv4 can replace IPv4+NAT, anything can replace that
mechanism that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Benny Amorsen wrote:
On 2003-10-21 at 14:15, Todd T. Fries wrote:
I'm sorry to reply late to this, but I can't help but realize that
NAT+IPv4 vs IPv6+firewall can be equivalent in `isolation'. Simply
`block in all' and `pass out on $ext_if keep state'
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Benny Amorsen wrote:
internal network do not notice the failure at all. In the IPv6+firewall
case the new addresses are provided to the hosts and eventually the old
addresses time out -- and the internal TCP connection breaks. Ouch.
Not if you have statically assigned IPv6
You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
I am no NAT apologist but I do not think this is entirely true. Skype runs
amazingly well behind NATs. As long as NAT is an option people will find
ways to twist applications
How does Skype provide point-to-point connections through NAT without a
centralized intermediary?
- Ralph
At 10:15 AM 10/21/2003 -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
I am no NAT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does Skype provide point-to-point connections
through NAT without a centralized intermediary?
See inline.
Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being
At 10:15 AM 10/21/2003 -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
I am no NAT apologist but I do not think this is entirely true. Skype runs
amazingly well behind NATs. As long as NAT is an
Tim Chown wrote:
But if I want a VoIP communication from me (behind a NAT) to
some user behind a NAT, not using a 3rd party location server,
how does v4 deliver, without the receiving user having the pain
of port forwarding configuration on their NAT?
There are several methods today; uPNP
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
How does Skype provide point-to-point connections through NAT without a
centralized intermediary?
- Ralph
There is no centralized intermediary. But skype uses other non-NATted
non-firewalled peers to route calls between two NATted FWed endpoints.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 07:49:04AM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
But if I want a VoIP communication from me (behind a NAT) to
some user behind a NAT, not using a 3rd party location server,
how does v4 deliver, without the receiving user having the pain
of port forwarding
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:02:39PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
But there is a big difference between using a 3rd party directory, and
passing data through an intermediary. That is, you might very well have
end-to-end connectivity, but use a directory to locate the other
end-point.
Indeed.
Tim
Stig Venaas wrote:
But there is a big difference between using a 3rd party directory,
and passing data through an intermediary. That is, you might very
well have end-to-end connectivity, but use a directory to locate
the other end-point.
Indeed. But the difference is big technically, which
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
How does Skype provide point-to-point connections through NAT without a
centralized intermediary?
- Ralph
There is no centralized intermediary. But skype uses other non-NATted
non-firewalled peers to route calls between two NATted FWed endpoints.
There
: RE: IPv6 adoption behavior
Sorry all these vendors support IPv6 upgrades as part of OS releases: Sun, IBM, HP,
Microsoft, Cisco, Juniper, Windriver, and
others. Yes some router and embedded systems hardware will require next gen hardware.
But to say that IPv6 requires a hardware
upgrade
Umm, since folks have decided to perpetuate this thread, I think I'm entitled
to the following disclaimer. Let's see if I can make this sound all legal. :)
My lack of response--in compliance with the chairs' decision to discontinue
this obviously disturbing discussion--shall in no way be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dan Lanciani wrote:
SNIP
I strongly doubt that IPv6 will be available as a
software-only upgrade for any but the latest equipment. There is just too little
incentive for vendors (especially ones who have gone out of business :) to
support legacy
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
Eugene M. Kim wrote:
That said, what actually bothers me is the classic chicken-and-egg
problem. Application writers are reluctant to add IPv6 support
because they know that there is little to none of IPv6 infrastructure
(read: ISPs supporting IPv6) out there. ISPs, on the other hand,
are
That said, what actually bothers me is the classic chicken-and-egg
problem. Application writers are reluctant to add IPv6 support
because they know that there is little to none of IPv6
infrastructure
(read: ISPs supporting IPv6) out there. ISPs, on the other hand,
are reluctant to do
Christian,
Christian Huitema wrote:
The Teredo design is predicated on the idea that we can ship IPv6
as a software upgrade on the PC. The update can be enabled as part
of an application development. That is actually quite powerful,
and does break the chicken-and-egg problem.
True, but
Eugene M. Kim
What customers want is to have their needs fulfilled (e.g. to be
able to play StarCraft online at a LAN party at their houses).
As long as they get what they want, they are less concerned
about what technology application developers and ISPs have used
to implement it. Thus, the
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 3:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPv6 adoption behavior
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|On 17 okt 2003, at 6:29, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
| NAT is stiff competition--and it is the
| incumbent, so being
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|On 17 okt 2003, at 21:34, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
| |So what are you saying?
|
| I'm saying that IPv6 will be a hard sell since it brings great upgrade
| costs and offers a reduction in the functionality that people expect
| and
| depend on.
|
|I
Bound, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|As side note. Outside of the IETF a very coordinated and strong force
|is stating NAT business view should not be propogated with IPv6 adoption
|and NAT does not provide security and has a great cost.
The alleged security feature of NAT makes for a very
On 17 okt 2003, at 21:34, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|So what are you saying?
I'm saying that IPv6 will be a hard sell since it brings great upgrade
costs and offers a reduction in the functionality that people expect
and
depend on.
I don't see the upgrade costs for regular users. Users are by now
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|On 17 okt 2003, at 6:29, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
| NAT is stiff competition--and it is the
| incumbent, so being almost as good is nowhere near good enough.
| Moreover,
| a single solution is appealing exactly because it is a single solution.
| You
Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|That said, there are multiple parts to the isolation issue, and even though
|most NAT implementations combine them, the discussion will be more
|constructive to keep them separate.
I used to believe this, but I recently came to the realization that isolation
Christian Strauf (JOIN) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|I don't think that it is about giving up what you need. With a combined
|v4/v6-capable firewall- and v4-NAT box you could easily achieve the same
|level of isolation of a subnet but without the restrictions for IPv6
|hosts that are forced on
Dan Lanciani wrote:
Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|That said, there are multiple parts to the isolation issue, and even though
|most NAT implementations combine them, the discussion will be more
|constructive to keep them separate.
I used to believe this, but I recently came to the
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
| Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| |That said, there are multiple parts to the isolation issue, and even though
| |most NAT implementations combine them, the discussion will be more
| |constructive to keep them separate.
|
Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
| ... Attempting to pigeonhole
| each aspect of that isolation (and offer limited solutions) encourages a
| divide-and-sweep-under-the-rug attack.
|
|Recent evidence around the IETF supports this claim, but in the real world
|where NAT is
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPv6 adoption behavior
My crystal ball is as cloudy as anyone's. But I would
expect that it
is all
a matter of economics.
I very much agree with you on this point. The problem is that
right now it's too hard to sell IPv6 (in the literal sense
Fred,
Fred Baker wrote:
Frankly, it's not about IPv4 exhaustion, it is about market
adoption of IPv6.
IPv4 address exhaustion will never occur. As we approach 100%
allocation (being now a tad over 60% allocation), the level
of administrative pushback on a new allocation requests will
At 10:52 AM 14/10/2003 -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
At 09:48 AM 10/14/2003, Michel Py wrote:
In my wildest dreams, 10 years at least; possibly 20 depending on how
good the projections in terms of IPv4 exhaustion are.
Frankly, it's not about IPv4 exhaustion, it is about market adoption of IPv6.
IPv4
Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|Indeed. The only other factor here is that it is not entirely a clean
|substitution,
|as NATs provide an alternative product which is an imperfect substitution.
|The extent
|to which the market, over the past few years, has tended towards NATs despite
41 matches
Mail list logo
