On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 12/12/2014 18:12, heasley wrote:
...
I don't know anyone enchanted by v6.
Strange choice of word. I'm not in the least enchanted by IPv4
or by NAT44 either. I just know as a matter of fact that the
IPv4nternet ran out of addresses a while back and we have no
alternative but to fix it using IPv6. All the rest is details,
important details of course, but details.
Dear Brian,
Agreed. One should not support the standardization of a v6 to v4 transitional
scheme which significantly weakens protocol security by restricting available
port assignments at various points within a path. Suggested bit ranges of 7 to
10 bits significantly reduces protections otherwise obtained by random
assignment. As such, it makes this a trivial matter for malefactors to deduce
likely source entropies. Although IPv6 creates different challenges, it
provides the only viable long term standard moving forward. In addition, NAT
keep-alives tend to consume critical mobile energy resources.
Regards,
Douglas Otis