> On Aug 13, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Dan Wing wrote: > > We can't just 'encourage' p2p users to move to v6 until there is > > content on v6 -- this is the very same problem for v6-only clients > > wanting to access v6 content (there isn't any -- www.google.com, > > www.cnn.com, www.amazon.com, are not on v6. "ipv6.google.com" != > > "www.google.com"). > > Actually, that's my point. p2p is *not* cnn.com. p2p can > discover > ipv6 peers automatically. So okay, you can't get to > google.com with > v6. But you can make your p2p stuff work better. So there's some > value that ipv6 could add sooner rather than later.
Gotcha: So you're saying "if you're behind a CGN (doing v4v4 NAT or v6v4 NAT), you get 100 ports. But if you are doing native v6, you get 64K ports. Your massive port-consuming p2p application will work better with 64K ports". Am I characterising that correctly? -d _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
