[125657] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roger Marquis)
Tue Apr 20 19:39:03 2010
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2853.1271800964.25298.nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Jack Bates wrote:
> 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).
Thing is, neither of these cheap CPE has UPNP enabled, which leads me to
question whether claims regarding large numbers of serverless multi-user
game users are accurate.
I disable UPNP as standard practice since it is cannot be enabled securely,
at least not on cheap CPE.
> 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.
I should have been clearer, apologies. WRT LSN, there is no reason
individual users couldn't upgrade to a static IP for their insecurely
designed multi-user games, and no reason to suspect John Levine's ISP is
not representative with 0.16% of its users requesting upgrades.
Roger Marquis
