| 1 |
On 03/08/2013 07:13 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 09:49:23PM +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> What would have been best, could have been done years ago and not cost |
| 5 |
>> lots of money and even more in security breaches and what I meant by |
| 6 |
>> ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even today with everyone |
| 7 |
>> being happy to switch to it is simply ipv4 with more bits for address |
| 8 |
>> space. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This should be FAQ entry zero for the IPV6 FAQ... *NO* you can *NOT* |
| 11 |
> add more bits to IPV4, and still have it backwards compatable. It won't |
| 12 |
> work... period... end of story. Every piece of hardware and software |
| 13 |
> that deals with IPV4 has the concept of 32 bits *HARD-CODED* into it. |
| 14 |
> Switching over to IPV4-extended would be just as painfull as switching |
| 15 |
> over to IPV6. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> We will be running out of IPV4 address space shortly so we do need to |
| 18 |
> upgrade. Having said that, I don't understand all the hate for NAT. At |
| 19 |
> the risk of being called an elitist, I'll say that 95% of average |
| 20 |
> internet users have no business running servers; heck many of them can't |
| 21 |
> even keep *CLIENTS* properly secured. If IPV6-NAT in my home causes me |
| 22 |
> any problem, that's my problem. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The trouble with NAT is that it destroys peer-to-peer protocols. The |
| 26 |
first was FTP in Active mode. SIP has been heavily damaged as well. |
| 27 |
Anyone who's used IRC is familiar with the problems NAT introduces to |
| 28 |
DCC. Anyone who's ever played video games online, or who's tried hosting |
| 29 |
a Teamspeak or Ventrillo server, has had NAT get in their way as well. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Seriously, why should my voice packets have to travel across three or |
| 32 |
more states in order to bounce through Google Voice servers, if I'm |
| 33 |
talking to my wife on her laptop in the next city over? |
Archives