[125540] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Bellovin)
Mon Apr 19 13:30:03 2010
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4BCC9157.9040507@bryanfields.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:26:59 -0400
To: Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 19, 2010, at 1:22 31PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 4/19/2010 10:14, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>> The eyeball ISPs will find it trivial to NAT should they ever need to =
do
>> so however, something servers cannot do - you are looking at numbers,
>> not operational considerations.
>=20
> LSN is not trivial.
>=20
Also remember the abuse/blacklist/CALEA problem with NAT -- you have to =
log every connection by port number, and hope that the complaints you =
get mention source port.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
