[125721] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roger Marquis)
Wed Apr 21 18:34:22 2010
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2962.1271887258.25298.nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Jack Bates wrote:
> 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.
Let's not forget why UPNP is what it is and why it should go away. UPNP
was Microsoft's answer to Sun's JINI. It was never intended to provide
security. All MS wanted do with UPNP was derail a competing vendor's
(vastly superior) technology. Not particularly different than MS' recent
efforts around OOXML.
Roger Marquis
