On 03/08/2013 07:13 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 09:49:23PM +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote > >> What would have been best, could have been done years ago and not cost >> lots of money and even more in security breaches and what I meant by >> ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even today with everyone >> being happy to switch to it is simply ipv4 with more bits for address >> space. > > This should be FAQ entry zero for the IPV6 FAQ... *NO* you can *NOT* > add more bits to IPV4, and still have it backwards compatable. It won't > work... period... end of story. Every piece of hardware and software > that deals with IPV4 has the concept of 32 bits *HARD-CODED* into it. > Switching over to IPV4-extended would be just as painfull as switching > over to IPV6. > > We will be running out of IPV4 address space shortly so we do need to > upgrade. Having said that, I don't understand all the hate for NAT. At > the risk of being called an elitist, I'll say that 95% of average > internet users have no business running servers; heck many of them can't > even keep *CLIENTS* properly secured. If IPV6-NAT in my home causes me > any problem, that's my problem. >
The trouble with NAT is that it destroys peer-to-peer protocols. The first was FTP in Active mode. SIP has been heavily damaged as well. Anyone who's used IRC is familiar with the problems NAT introduces to DCC. Anyone who's ever played video games online, or who's tried hosting a Teamspeak or Ventrillo server, has had NAT get in their way as well. Seriously, why should my voice packets have to travel across three or more states in order to bounce through Google Voice servers, if I'm talking to my wife on her laptop in the next city over?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
