[arin-ppml] inevitability of NAT?

[Jack Bates]

On 2/10/2011 10:30 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> My opinion, to some extent, is that in the coming years: clients that
> require IPv4 but don't work well with NAT should expect to break.  On
> the other hand, clients with IPv6 support should experience an
> improved experience.
>

I agree, and this is the motivation that will push faster IPv6 deployment.

> 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.
>
> By the way, one of the PCP working group chairs is Dave Thaler from
> Microsoft (maker of Xbox).

I hope he remembers that people game with their neighbors and 
applications behind LSN will have to deal with that extremely difficult 
problem. I personally don't think you can establish p2p in that scenario 
at all.


Jack