On 17/02/2007, at 7:27 PM, Steve Phillips wrote:
It'd still work, as far as I can see.. They wouldn't be able to do non-nat-friendly protocols to their ISP's proxy/etc. servers, but if the ISP chooses to support protocols that don't have that problem, it's not a problem.
Like most peer to peer type protocols (that 'sorta work on some devices') like - um.. xbox live ? msn (file transfer and video calling) etc etc.
Right, but NAT breaks those protocols now, and those protocols don't do IPv6 either[1].
having individually numbered devices and standard firewall rules is like having one to one NAT, which is desirable.
what's desirable and what tends to get implemented however may not be the same thing, but seriously, are you saying that we _shouldn't_ be striving for this ? (I did note you said you 'don't think IPv6 deployment is a good thing' <g>)
Woops. I mean bad thing. I guess I got half way through re-wording the sentence and got distracted. -- Nathan Ward [1] Based on a quick google about each.