[125631] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Apr 20 15:22:26 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BCDF8E0.8010706@brightok.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:16:52 -0700
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> Roger Marquis wrote:
>> Considering how many end-users sit behind NAT firewalls and =
non-firewall
>> gateways at home, at work, and at public access points all day =
without
>> issue, this is a particularly good example of the IETF's ongoing =
issues
>> with design-by-committee, particularly committees short on security
>> engineering and long on special interest. While LECs and ISPs may or =
may
>> not feel some pain from LSN, they're equally sure feel better after
>> crying all the way to the bank.
>=20
> Remove uPNP from those home user nat boxes and see how well the nat to =
nat connections work. Office firewalls often are heavily restrictive, =
use proxy layers to deal with connectivity issues and tend to have less =
typical types of traffic.
>=20
> Jack
uPNP will not likely be feasible on LSN. So, yes, you need to do your =
NAT
testing in preparation for LSN on the basis of what works without uPNP.
Owen
