[125639] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Apr 20 16:13:03 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AE8D3790-EB82-40C0-99DE-74D898A10A2D@hopcount.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:07:09 -0700
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 12:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>=20
> On 2010-04-20, at 15:31, Roger Marquis wrote:
>=20
>> If this were really an issue I'd expect my nieces and nephews, all of =
whom are big
>> game players, would have mentioned it. They haven't though, despite =
being behind
>> cheap NATing CPE from D-Link and Netgear.
>=20
> I have heard it said before that there is significant cooperation =
and/or software engineering work between some or all of those who make =
residential gateways and those who make multi-player games to achieve =
this end result. The opinion I heard vocalised at the time was that it =
would have been a lot easier to reach this state of affairs if there had =
been standardisation of NAT in v4 at an early stage. As it is, =
peer-to-peer apps like games require significant if-then-else to make =
anything work.
>=20
The fact that they work is usually due to uPNP or another inbound NAT-T =
solution. All of these will be very unlikely to work in an LSN =
environment. None of them work in a multilayer NAT environment.
>> Address conservation aside, the main selling point of NAT is its =
filtering of inbound
>> session requests.
>=20
> If that was all that was required, you could sell a stateful firewall =
that didn't do NAT, and everybody would buy that instead because it =
would make things like iChat AV break less. Apparently there are other =
reasons to buy and sell devices that NAT (e.g. my ISP gives me one =
address, but the laptop and the Wii both want to use the internet).
>=20
In IPv4, yes, there are other reasons. (Address conservation). In =
IPv6, it shouldn't be a problem to sell a stateful firewall that doesn't =
do NAT.
Owen
