[125645] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Tue Apr 20 16:55:01 2010
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:51:46 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100420193147.C69612B2128@mx5.roble.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Roger Marquis wrote:
> 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.
Disable the uPNP (some routers lack it, and yes, it breaks and microsoft
will tell you to get uPNP capable NAT routers or get a new ISP).
uPNP at a larger scale? Would require some serious security and
scalability analysis.
> Arguments against NAT uniformly fail to give credit to these security
> considerations,
Your argument has nothing to do with this part of the thread and
discussion of why implementing NAT at a larger scale is bad. I guess it
might have something to do in other tangents of supporting NAT66.
Jack
