[190454] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Tue Jul 5 00:23:13 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:22:59 +0900
In-Reply-To: <50534.1467691256@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>> A large ISP should just set up usual NAT. In addition,
> Thus almost guaranteeing a call to the support desk for each and every single
> game console, because the PS3 and PS4 doesn't have a configuration interface
> for that, and the XBox probably doesn't either (and if it does, it's probably
> something that Joe Sixpack can't do without help).
With usual NAT? That is not my problem.
>> But, if you want to run a server at fixed IP address
>> and port, port forwarding must be static.
>
> A laudable network design for my competitors. Feel free to deploy it at a
> realistic sized ISP and let us know how it works out.
Are you saying there is no realistic sized ISP offering fixed
IP addresses without NAT?
If not, additional setup of static port forwarding on NAT boxes
can not be a problem.
Masataka Ohta
