[137129] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Feb 9 15:36:52 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC1397D@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 21:33:51 +0100
To: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 9 feb 2011, at 21:23, George Bonser wrote:
> While that is true, it is no worse than the situation right now. In =
the
> US, the vast majority of users are already behind a NAT (I would say
> over 90% of them are) so they are already experiencing this breakage. =20=
There's a big difference between being able to have uPNP IGD or NAT-PMP =
open up holes in the NAT (or do it manually) and being 100% incapable of =
getting any and all incoming sessions. And between having 64k ports for =
a home and having 64k ports for 100, 1000, 10000 ? homes.
