In message <dcc302faa9fe5f4bba4dcad4656937791451334...@prvpexvs03.corp.twcable.com> "Howard, Lee" writes: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of james > > woodyatt > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 11:07 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture & Interim Meeting > > > > On Oct 10, 2011, at 19:45 , Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > > > > > All of this is only true for IPv4 but not for IPv6. > > > > I wasn't talking about IPv4 at all. My comments are relevant in a world > > entirely comprising > > IPv6-only service providers. The IPv6 Internet will be saddled with all of > > the problems of > > the IPv4 Internet with respect to devices on homenets having to beg the > > gateways to allow > > inbound packets from arbitrary remote destinations. It has nothing to do > > with NAT, and > > everything to do with firewalls and stateful filters. > > s/beg/authorize
That response seems to be confirming the problem. The customer should not need the ISP to authorize inbound traffic. Otherwise the service should not be called an "Internet" service. It is a service providing only limited Internet connectivity. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
