> On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do. > > > Remember, what I'm trying to do is avoid user-visible regressions while > getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, period. No ifs, no > buts, no requests to the network. The user turns it on, and it works. > IPv4-only apps always work. > > A model where the device has to request resources from the network before > enabling tethering, or before supporting IPv4-only apps, provides a much > worse user experience. The user might have to wait a long time, or the > operation might even fail.
Sure, but when you take a NAT and replace it with no-NAT there will be no-NAT regressions as a result. Perhaps doing 66 w/ ULA would provide a comparable experience? IPv4 and IPv6 are enough alike that 99% of things “just work” but it’s in the 1% of ARP v NDP, is what we’re talking about here. - Jared
