Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
Jack Bates wrote:
Disable the uPNP (some routers lack it, and yes, it breaks and microsoft will tell you to get uPNP capable NAT routers or get a new ISP).
Thing is, neither of these cheap CPE has UPNP enabled, which leads me to question whether claims regarding large numbers of serverless multi-user game users are accurate. I disable UPNP as standard practice since it is cannot be enabled securely, at least not on cheap CPE.
Your argument has nothing to do with this part of the thread and discussion of why implementing NAT at a larger scale is bad. I guess it might have something to do in other tangents of supporting NAT66.
I should have been clearer, apologies. WRT LSN, there is no reason individual users couldn't upgrade to a static IP for their insecurely designed multi-user games, and no reason to suspect John Levine's ISP is not representative with 0.16% of its users requesting upgrades. Roger Marquis
Roger Marquis wrote:
Thing is, neither of these cheap CPE has UPNP enabled, which leads me to question whether claims regarding large numbers of serverless multi-user game users are accurate.
I'd say it's a question for m$. I've seen it break, I've had to reprogram older cpe's that didn't have uPNP enabled to get customers working. I base my assertions on personal experience of managing a medium sized ISP.
I should have been clearer, apologies. WRT LSN, there is no reason individual users couldn't upgrade to a static IP for their insecurely designed multi-user games, and no reason to suspect John Levine's ISP is not representative with 0.16% of its users requesting upgrades.
It's not representative of my ISP, though my 30,000 consumers (we'll ignore more business accounts) may be too small to be indicative of larger networks. Jack
participants (2)
-
Jack Bates -
Roger Marquis