On 4/10/2007, at 11:07 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't dug too deep into NAT-PT, but an obvious question comes to
mind: Why would an ISP deliver an IPv6-only connection plus
NAT-PT (and all the likely problems) with a surcharge for
IPv4 instead of delivering RFC191
On Thu, October 4, 2007 6:49 am, Mike Leber wrote:
> As the data at http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi shows for the
> IPv6 and IPv4 nameserver tests, some of the time IPv6 connectivity is
> *faster* than IPv4 connectivity (66 out of 264 test cases), because of
> network topology differen
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Daniel Senie wrote:
> BTW, thanks for bringing this thread back to the question of creating
> demand for IPv6. There's plenty of anti-NAT activity on other
> threads. Some constructive discussion over ways to create incentives
> to deploy IPv6 is worthwhile. The most common
At 08:04 PM 10/3/2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only
killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought
about this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a reality.
What occur
On 4/10/2007, at 12:24 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did not change anything on that page, either. For the
record, that's because I have a screaming two-year-old trying
to use me as a climbing wall right now.
My 10 month-old is soundly sleeping right now so I incorpora
On 10/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As mentioned, 6to4 doesn't do what you seem to think it does.
> > Its not a solution to the problem of IPv6 endpoints trying to
> > talk to IPv4 endpoints.
>
> I see that you did not change anything on that page. Specifically what
> is w
On 10/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you care to wager, I'll take some of that action. Without
> > a relatively transparent mechanism for IPv6-only hosts to
> > access IPv4-only sites this isn't going to happen. We don't
> > have such a mechanism built and won't have it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Abley) wrote:
> 6to4 (for content- or access-focussed networks) is surely a solution
> to the problem of "I have no good way to acquire IPv6 transit";
It solves another problem as well, like "I cannot go v6 to
my servers because my load balancing and packet filtering
bla
> > It isn't that simple. The fact that NAT exists and is seen as useful
> > by many people (whether or not they are even aware of it) means
> > services and applications need to be aware of it.
>
> This is a hidden cost of NAT. Why hack many applications to work around
> a network layer pro
On 10/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, if there was a reasonable translation mechanism
> > available which allowed IPv6-only end systems to access
> > IPv4-only content, I think the picture would look quite
> > different.
>
> Doesn't deploying a 6to4 relay in the con
On 10/3/07, Mark Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The value of network perimeterisation as a security measure, of which
> NAT is a method, is being questioned significantly by network security
> people.
Mark,
The discussion at hand is whether the absence of NAT creates a drag on
IPv6 deploymen
On 10/2/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > During early phase of free pool exhaustion, when you can't deliver
> > more IPv4 addresses to your customers you lose the customer to a
> > hosting provider who still has addresses left. So sorry. Those will be
> > some nasty years. Unless you'
On 10/2/07, Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, William Herrin wrote:
> > At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
> > eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative
> > demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
>
> At th
On 10/2/07, John Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
> >eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative
> >demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
>
> #1 has been partially mitigated by NAT, and perhap
On 10/2/07, Brian Raaen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, a
> better way to push IPv6 is make users want it and feel like they are missing
> out if they don't have it. I campaign with some kind of slogan like 'got
> IPv6' or "I've got ultra high tech IPv6 for my internet and you don't" with
15 matches
Mail list logo
