> Ted Lemon a écrit : > > On Aug 13, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Dan Wing wrote: > >> 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? > > > > Just about. I was also making the additional point that > this provides > > a meaningful incentive to the end-user to go dual-stack. > > and that with v6, you are not hidden by default (only by > firewall policy if desired), therefore it makes servers (ie. > a listening port) more easier to deploy. think about SIP today... > I've been involved in voipv6 and it is 10 times simpler > to deploy for that reason.
The filtering recommendations in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03 would change your experience. You might bring that up in v6ops. -d _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
