On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:43:49 -0300
Luis Listas <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> > On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:29:42 +0200
> > Thiago Macieira<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >
> >    
> >> >  On Thursday 8. July 2010 18.37.54 Bernd Stramm wrote:
> >>      
> >>> >  >  On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:21:24 +0200
> >>> >  >  
> >>> >  >  Yves-Alexis Perez<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >>>        
> >>>> >  >  >  On 08/07/2010 18:18, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> >>>>          
> >>>>> >  >  >  >  Where it does come in is that private users today
> >>>>> >  >  >  > cannot be reached by IPv4 unless they go through
> >>>>> >  >  >  > servers. This is different with IPv6, at least at
> >>>>> >  >  >  > the moment.
> >>>>>            
> >>>> >  >  >  
> >>>> >  >  >  So what you want is something like link-local messaging
> >>>> >  >  > at a global scale?
> >>>>          
> >>> >  >  
> >>> >  >  Right, I want normal global IP addresses as originally
> >>> >  > intended. The NAT stuff was added later because of lack of
> >>> >  > IPv4 address space. 
> >>> >  >  This works today if you have IPv6.
> >>>        
> >> >  
> >> >  IPv6 will not remove firewalls. People will have unique
> >> > addresses, but reachability is not a guarantee.
> >> >  
> >>      
> > Right, but it depends on who controls the firewall. Right now that
> > is lumped together with the address translation, done by the ISP.
> > Most people don't know that these are separate issues. When they
> > have a unique address it becomes obvious.
> >
> >
> >    
> 
> Many kudos for trying to reclaim the Internet spirit! It reminds me
> of the application called SpeakFreely, which was discontinued and
> later turned into a open source project.
> 
> Here is the most important part of John's last words on that
> (emphasis mine), on January 15th, 2004:
> 
>     http://www.fourmilab.ch/speakfree/unix/
> 
>     (...)
>     A user behind a NAT box is no longer a peer to other sites on the
>     Internet. Since the user no longer has an externally visible
>     Internet Protocol (IP) address (fixed or variable), there is no
> way (in the general case--there may be "workarounds" for specific NAT
>     boxes, but they're basically exploiting bugs which will probably
>     eventually be fixed) for sites to open connections or address
>     packets to his machine. *The user is demoted to acting exclusively
>     as a client*. While the user can contact and freely exchange
> packets with sites not behind NAT boxes, he cannot  be reached by
>     connections which originate at other sites. In economic terms, the
>     NATted *user has become a consumer* of services provided by a
>     *higher-ranking class of sites, producers or publishers*, not
>     subject to NAT.
>     (...)
> 
> 
> Again, thanks for the effort.
> 
> What are the requirements to currently use Ipv6? Both my OS and my 
> router are capable.
> 

Some ISPs provide it. There are also a handful of organizations that
provide tunnel brokers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_tunnel_brokers

> Luis
> 



-- 
Bernd Stramm
<[email protected]>

_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev

Reply via email to