[190393] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Fri Jul 1 23:50:17 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:49:50 +0900
In-Reply-To: <2634D4B9-A92B-408F-87C8-AA9C0A8CCEFB@puck.nether.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Jared Mauch wrote:
> https://youtu.be/v26BAlfWBm8
>
> Is always good for a reminder and laughs on a holiday weekend.
But, end to end NATs are actually good:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00
fully transparent to all the transport and application layer
protocols.
And, to applications running over TCP/UDP, UPnP capable legacy
NATs are transparent, if host TCP/UDP are modified to perform
reverse NAT, information to do so is provided by UPnP.
Masataka Ohta
