On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I’d argue that SSH is several thousand, not a few hundred. In any case, I suppose you can make the argument that only a few people are trying to access their home network resources remotely other than via some sort of proxy/rendezvous service. However, I would argue that such services exist solely to provide a workaround for the deficiencies in the network introduced by NAT. Get rid of the stupid NAT and you no longer need such services.
This is an interesting argument/point, but if you remove the rendevous service then how do you find the thing in your house? now the user has to manage DNS, or the service in question has to manage a dns entry for the customer, right?
DNS is pretty easy. There are dozen’s of free web-UI based DNS services out there. Some of them even run by registrars.
you'll be moving the (some of the) pain from 'nat' to 'dns' (or more generally naming and identification). I think though that in a better world, a service related to the thing you want to prod from outside would manage this stuff for you.
I’m unconvinced. Perhaps I prefer to create an entry once vs. pay for some other service to do this and charge me on a monthly basis for a one-time action.
It's important (I think) to not simplify the discussion as: "Oh, with ipv6 magic happens!" because there are still problems and design things to overcome even with unhindered end-to-end connectivity.
I made no attempt to declare that there was any magic with IPv6. Indeed, my claim is that less magic is required. Owen