Nilsson wrote:
For which there is better use than prolonging bad technical solutions.
A problem is that IPv6 is a bad technical solution.
For examples, its bloated address space is bad, ND with full
of bloated useless features is bad and multicast PMTUD only
to cause ICMP implosions is bad.
Address translation has set the state of consumer computing back severely.
No, not at all.
Do keep in mind that the real driver in IP technology is the ability
for end-nodes to communicate in a manner they chose without prior
coordination with some kind of protocol gateway. NAT and more so CGN
explicitly disables this key feature.
Wrong. Nat can be end to end transparent, if hosts recognize
existence of NAT and cooperate with NAT gateways to reverse
address (and port) translation.
See RFC3102 and draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00.txt. I have confirmed
that PORT command of unmodified ftp client just work.
Though my draft assumes special NAT gateway, I recently
noticed that similar thing is possible with UPnP capable
existing NAT gateways.
And this is not what the IETF should be doing. The IETF should seek
to maximise the technical capabilities of the Internet protocol
suite so that it may continue to enable new uses of the key feature,
ie. end-node reachability.
Yes. So, let's abandon IPv6, a bad technical solution, and
deploy NAT with UPnP or PCP (if designed properly) capabilities.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf