[arin-ppml] inevitability of NAT?
On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> That said, UPNP (and NAT-PMP etc) just don't scale to the carrier scope. PCP is coming, and clients should expect to migrate if they need IPv4 NAT support. PCP will also support IPv6 pinholes (i.e. control of security in IPv6-enabled CPE), so clients should migrate regardless.
> Why would anyone bother porting application code to PCP instead of just adding IPv6 capabilities? It seems to me that adding IPv6 is usually much simpler than adding PCP support and yields a much longer lifetime.
The two (IPv6 and PCP) are complimentary.
As I said in my previous message (I've been saying that a lot today...), PCP supports pinhole creation for IPv6. Given that draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router includes a simple security requirement, as documented in draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security, PCP will be useful for the same reasons UPNP has been useful to app developers.