[134655] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Problems with removing NAT from a network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Sat Jan 8 18:22:14 2011
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: <matthew@matthew.at>
In-Reply-To: <4D268097.6050502@matthew.at>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 17:22:06 -0600
Cc: Nanog Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: frnkblk@iname.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Relay nodes are always protecting themselves by rate-limiting, aren't they?
And isn't most media traffic relayed? I'm not seeing how the NAT64 scenario
would *dramatically* increase Skype's global relay traffic. NAT64 would
currently be a very small percentage of all Skype traffic.
We can always find examples of where things will break with v6. While the
v6-only world is still very small, let's *start* somewhere, where
intelligent clients like Skype can always "fall back" to v4. Lots of time
to figure out the corner cases.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew@matthew.at]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:55 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: Nanog Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network
On 1/6/2011 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Doesn't all of this become moot if Skype just develops a dual-stack
capable client
> and servers?
>
<snip>
Skype can still make this work by relaying, but in order to protect the
relay machine's bandwidth it will rate-limit the traffic, and so your
A/V experience will suffer. And that's assuming there's enough
dual-stacked relays... if there aren't, it won't be possible to find a
relay that they can reach over IPv4 and you can reach over IPv6 that has
available bandwidth.
Matthew Kaufman
