-Original Message-
From: JAKO Andras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 8:59 PM
To: Church, Charles
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG
Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
>An IPv6-only ISP with enough
> break. It seems like an IPv6-only ISP would need to operate the NAT-PT
> boxes, and dedicate a block of v4 addresses the size of the expected
> concurrent online users to the NAT-PT box. Keep in mind that a v6 ISP
> with 1 million customers won't need a million v4 addresses, for obvious
> reas
Thus spake "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only killer-content
that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought about this, and about the
government's push to make IPv6 a reality. What occurred to me is there is
a satellite sitting in st
It's seems we're always confusing NAT with PAT (or NAT overload, or
whatever else you want to call it). One to one NAT rarely breaks stuff.
NAT-PT would need to follow that model, otherwise, yes, things will
break. It seems like an IPv6-only ISP would need to operate the NAT-PT
boxes, and dedic
Why should ISPs still pay to support subscriber e-mail either inhouse
or outsourced, any more than paying to support USENET, Chat, FTP/HTTP
Hosting, etc? Let subscribers choose whichever "free" or "fee-based"
supplier, and wash your hands of both the support issues and the legal
compliance
On 3-okt-2007, at 15:52, Mark Newton wrote:
The tricky part is that we're not going to agree on that as a
community, so the status quo will persist until someone cares enough
to do something drastic that moves the entire industry in one
direction or another.
That isn't actually true. I coul
> That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a
> NAT-PT box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet
> regardless of whatever the rest of the community thinks.
>
> This whole "debate" is a complete waste of time,
Yup.
It would be more productive for everyone in the debat
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:02:31PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> The tricky part is that we're not going to agree on that as a
> community, so the status quo will persist until someone cares enough
> to do something drastic that moves the entire industry in one
> direction or ano
> It's a very different circumstance that we have today with
> NAT and it only gets worse as utilization increases.
Does it really get worse?
Or do the ISPs with the eyeballs point at their 6to4, Teredo, ALG
installations and happy customers with IPv6 access lines? And do the
ISPs with the cont
At 12:02 PM +0200 10/3/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>On 3-okt-2007, at 9:42, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>but the reality is ipv4 works and ipv6 doesn't.
>
>It has very little deployment at this point in time, that's something
>different.
I'm with Randy on this one... While we will have increased
I
On 3-okt-2007, at 9:42, Randy Bush wrote:
but the reality is ipv4 works and ipv6 doesn't.
It has very little deployment at this point in time, that's something
different.
and unless the ivory tower purists get off their doomed thrones,
ipv6 will die stillborn.
And unless the purists,
>> - If we do NAT-PT and the ALGs are implemented and then the
>> application workarounds around the ALGs, it's only a very small
>> step to wide scale IPv6 NAT.
> Perhaps it's a perspective issue, but I really don't see a problem
> with that. If the network works, who cares?
well, the thing i
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:33:43PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2-okt-2007, at 16:10, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >You can't trust the OS (Microsoft? hah!), you can't trust the
> >application (malware), and you sure as heck can't trust the user
> >(industrial espionage and/or soci
> - IPv4 vs IPv6 is completely invisible to the user. I regularly run
> netstat or tcpdump to see which I'm using, I doubt many people will do
> that. So if IPv6 works and IPv4 doesn't, that will look like random
> breakage to the untrained user rather than something they can do
> something about.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:07:19PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >IPv6 will happen. Eventually. And it'll have deficiencies which
> >some believe are "severe", just like the IPv4 Internet. Such as
> >NAT. Deal with it.
>
> If you want NAT, please come up with a standards document
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:50:09PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2-okt-2007, at 16:55, Mark Newton wrote:
> >So everyone will deploy IPv6 applications, which require no ALGs,
> >instead.
> >Isn't that a solution that everyone can be happy with?
>
> Well, I can think of a couple o
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> >By focussing on the mechanics of inbound NAT traversal, you're
> >ignoring the fact that applications work regardless. Web, VoIP,
> >P2P utilities, games, IM, Google Earth, you name it, it wor
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:56, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Second, the ALGs will have to be (re)written anyways to deal with
IPv6 stateful firewalls, whether or not NAT-PT happens.
That's one solution. I like the hole punching better because it's
more general purpose and better adheres to the principl
On 2-okt-2007, at 16:55, Mark Newton wrote:
ALGs are not the solution. They turn the internet into a telco-like
network where you only get to deploy new applications when the powers
that be permit you to.
No, they turn the Intenret into a network where you only get to
deploy new IPv4 applica
On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote:
By focussing on the mechanics of inbound NAT traversal, you're
ignoring the fact that applications work regardless. Web, VoIP,
P2P utilities, games, IM, Google Earth, you name it, it works.
O really? When was the last time you successfully transfer
20 matches
Mail list logo
