Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
Simon Perreault wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues
The Ford Draft is quite liberal in its statements regarding issues with NAT. Unfortunately, in the real-world, those examples are somewhat fewer and farther between than the draft RFC would lead you to believe. Considering how many end-users sit behind NAT firewalls and non-firewall gateways at home, at work, and at public access points all day without issue, this is a particularly good example of the IETF's ongoing issues with design-by-committee, particularly committees short on security engineering and long on special interest. While LECs and ISPs may or may not feel some pain from LSN, they're equally sure feel better after crying all the way to the bank. IMO, Roger Marquis
Roger Marquis wrote:
Considering how many end-users sit behind NAT firewalls and non-firewall gateways at home, at work, and at public access points all day without issue, this is a particularly good example of the IETF's ongoing issues with design-by-committee, particularly committees short on security engineering and long on special interest. While LECs and ISPs may or may not feel some pain from LSN, they're equally sure feel better after crying all the way to the bank.
Remove uPNP from those home user nat boxes and see how well the nat to nat connections work. Office firewalls often are heavily restrictive, use proxy layers to deal with connectivity issues and tend to have less typical types of traffic. Jack
On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
Roger Marquis wrote:
Considering how many end-users sit behind NAT firewalls and non-firewall gateways at home, at work, and at public access points all day without issue, this is a particularly good example of the IETF's ongoing issues with design-by-committee, particularly committees short on security engineering and long on special interest. While LECs and ISPs may or may not feel some pain from LSN, they're equally sure feel better after crying all the way to the bank.
Remove uPNP from those home user nat boxes and see how well the nat to nat connections work. Office firewalls often are heavily restrictive, use proxy layers to deal with connectivity issues and tend to have less typical types of traffic.
Jack
uPNP will not likely be feasible on LSN. So, yes, you need to do your NAT testing in preparation for LSN on the basis of what works without uPNP. Owen
participants (3)
-
Jack Bates -
Owen DeLong -
Roger Marquis