Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

[Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au>]

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> > By focussing on the mechanics of inbound NAT traversal, you're
> > ignoring the fact that applications work regardless.  Web, VoIP,
> > P2P utilities, games, IM, Google Earth, you name it, it works.
>
> O really? When was the last time you successfully transferred a file  
> using IM? It only works half the time for me and I don't even use NAT  
> on my main system myself. Some audio/video chat applications work  
> well, others decidedly less so. The only reason most stuff works most  
> of the time is because applications tell NAT devices to open up  
> incoming ports using uPnP or NAT-PMP.

"Ah, god damn Microsoft MSN client. Just send it via gmail already."
People deal with slightly broken crap all day, every day. If they
had a low tolerance for it then we'd be running OSF/1+Motif on
multi-core Alphas cause Windows on whiteboxes wouldn't have cut the
mustard.

> Right. Building something that can't meet reasonable requirements  
> first and then getting rid of the holes worked so well for the email  
> spam problem.

Ah, but:

* y'all didn't know what were reasonable requirements when SMTP was built;
  and
* You're not trying to do a forklift upgrade of SMTP protocol
  (which, arguably, would include reasonable anti-spam methods!)

Whereas:

* Y'all know the issues involved in migrating from ipv4 to ipv6, as
  you've got operational experience with both now, and
* You're trying to do a forklift upgrade of the IP protocol.



Adrian