[ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Morgado
chbm at chbm.net
Wed Oct 23 15:41:26 CEST 2019
> On 23 Oct 2019, at 14:26, Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com> wrote: > > On 5/10/19 13:18, Gert Doering wrote: > [....] >> >> With the way the Internet is evolving today, IPv4+NAT might just be good >> enough anyway. End users want lots of TV channels, the big content >> networks are providing. Everything (including DNS) is done over HTTPS >> today, which is very NAT friendly. CGN in the eyeball ISP world can >> easily achieve 10:1 or 50:1 IPv4 oversubscription, and with that, we >> have enough IPv4 for ever... >> >> Well, yes, end-to-end communication will be lost forever. But since >> the "EVERYONE MUST HAVE A FIREWALL!" crowd broke that for the normal >> household anyway, it's lost anyway. > > It's worse than that: Most IPv4 CPE devices have UPnP support, but IPv6 > ones often lack the hooks to punch holes into the fw. SO at the end of > the day you get better end-to-end connectivity with IPv4 than with IPv6. > > e.g., see: > https://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/tip/Ensuring-P2P-apps-dont-cause-network-performance-issues-with-IPv6 > Isn’t this a we broke the network so we must further break the network scenario ? If you remove PAT a lot of the UPnP needs go away and can be replaced by a mix of straightforward fw rules and stateful peeking like PAT residential CPEs do already. Going forward there’s nothing really stoping UPnP being implemented over IPv6 anyway is there ? > Thanks, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]