On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@colitti.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do.
Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions while getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, period. No ifs, no buts, no requests to the network. The user turns it on, and it works. IPv4-only apps always work.
A model where the device has to request resources from the network before enabling tethering, or before supporting IPv4-only apps, provides a much worse user experience. The user might have to wait a long time, or the operation might even fail.
Sure, but when you take a NAT and replace it with no-NAT there will be no-NAT regressions as a result. Perhaps doing 66 w/ ULA would provide a comparable experience? IPv4 and IPv6 are enough alike that 99% of things “just work” but it’s in the 1% of ARP v NDP, is what we’re talking about here. - Jared