[99722] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Wed Oct 3 04:07:20 2007
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:37:43 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4F72841E-5E72-4065-AC5D-F7704E3F72EF@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> >By focussing on the mechanics of inbound NAT traversal, you're
> >ignoring the fact that applications work regardless. Web, VoIP,
> >P2P utilities, games, IM, Google Earth, you name it, it works.
>
> O really? When was the last time you successfully transferred a file
> using IM? It only works half the time for me and I don't even use NAT
> on my main system myself. Some audio/video chat applications work
> well, others decidedly less so. The only reason most stuff works most
> of the time is because applications tell NAT devices to open up
> incoming ports using uPnP or NAT-PMP.
"Ah, god damn Microsoft MSN client. Just send it via gmail already."
People deal with slightly broken crap all day, every day. If they
had a low tolerance for it then we'd be running OSF/1+Motif on
multi-core Alphas cause Windows on whiteboxes wouldn't have cut the
mustard.
> Right. Building something that can't meet reasonable requirements
> first and then getting rid of the holes worked so well for the email
> spam problem.
Ah, but:
* y'all didn't know what were reasonable requirements when SMTP was built;
and
* You're not trying to do a forklift upgrade of SMTP protocol
(which, arguably, would include reasonable anti-spam methods!)
Whereas:
* Y'all know the issues involved in migrating from ipv4 to ipv6, as
you've got operational experience with both now, and
* You're trying to do a forklift upgrade of the IP protocol.
Adrian
