Nathan Ward wrote:
On 17/02/2007, at 7:14 PM, Steve Phillips wrote:
Nathan Ward wrote:
Proxies etc. can be deployed, and be working for everyone (save a few corner cases, perhaps), right now. They don't require any global switchover/upgrade/etc. and on top of that, they can be used as extra revenue streams/products/etc. If everyone had one computer (network enabled device) behind one NAT device your statement may actually start approaching truth.
However, as is becoming increasingly common, this is not the case.
Please play again :-)
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. 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>) -- Steve.