> On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@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
