[125711] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Wed Apr 21 16:09:20 2010
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:05:42 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Dave Sparro <dsparro@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BCF3B96.4020802@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Dave Sparro wrote:
>
> Don't you get all of the same problems when there is a properly
> restrictive SPI firewall at both ends of the connection regardless of
> weather NAT is used as well.
If you mean, "do we still need protocols similar to uPNP" the answer is
yes. Of course, uPNP is designed with a SPI in mind. However, we
simplify a lot of problems when we remove address mangling from the
equation.
That's not to say there won't be NAT for IPv6. Fact is, businesses will
ask and firewall vendors will give. Of course, business needs are often
different than general usage (and especially home usage) needs.
Jack
