In message <[email protected]> Michael Richardson writes: > >>>>> "Curtis" =3D=3D Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> writes: > >> All this talk about tunnels and names made me think that people > >> might be interested in the Signpost project, mainly based at > >> the Computer Lab in Cambridge where I am currently a visitor. > >> I think this project is a proof of concept for ideas being > >> discussed here. > >>=20 > >> http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2012/paper/sigcomm/p83.pdf > >>=20 > >> (10MB file) http://conferences.npl.co.uk/satin/presentations/satin20= > 12slides-Madhavapeddy.pdf > >>=20 > >> Regards > >> Brian Carpenter > > Curtis> Remove NAT and the work has no purpose. > > I don't quite agree. > The external rendezvous is *FORCED* by NAT. > > The need for a rendezvous goes away with IPv6 end to end, assuming that > security policies allow.=20=20 > > But, if we assume that end users should never type IPv6 addresses, then > a rendezvous (which might now, be hosted by one or more devices at the > home, rather than in the cloud!!!) is something that very much > facilitates use by regular users. > > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works=20
You are assuming that DNS would never be available to the home when you state that "But, if we assume that end users should never type IPv6 addresses". This is technically solvable with IPv6, no NAT, and DNS. If some users end up typing IPv6 addresses for lack of DNS cooperation from their provider, they may consider switching providers. Even without cooperation from the provider, a device can have the resolver pointed at the home DNS server as a means of rendezvous if you want a rendezvous in the home. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
