[190394] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Sat Jul 2 07:12:30 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <13e05110-89bf-a000-f7e3-1b7c39ad8588@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 07:12:22 -0400
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Actually they are not that great. Look at the DDoS mess that UPnP has create=
d and problems for IoT (I call it Internet of trash, as most devices are poo=
rly implemented without safety in mind) folks on all sides.=20
The fact that I go to a hotel and that AT&T mobility have limited internet r=
each is a technology problem that we all must work to fix.=20
Jared Mauch
> On Jul 1, 2016, at 11:49 PM, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.=
jp> wrote:
>=20
> 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.
