[134550] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Bellovin)
Thu Jan 6 21:30:50 2011
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9DEED87C-ED15-4D05-BCD6-69A5D4A69681@delong.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 21:30:36 -0500
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: Nanog Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 6, 2011, at 8:48 12PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Doesn't all of this become moot if Skype just develops a dual-stack =
capable client
> and servers?
Skype is an interesting case because of its peer-to-peer nature. Given =
the
state of v6 deployment and operational experience[1], and especially =
given the
fragility of tunneled IPv6 connections[2], there is potential for a lot =
of
broken links. =20
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
[1] All concerned are mystified about why my office machines can't reach =
[major
site] via v6, even though traceroute6 from both ends shows the packets =
reaching
the same network. A couple of weeks earlier, I couldn't get anywhere =
via IPv6
because someone had connected a NAT+v6 tunneler in bridge mode, and my =
machine
believe its RA messages.
[2] See http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/faq.html#tunnel=
