Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Why is Keith so desperately wedged on one particular means of achieving his objective? > because it's by far the simplest and most reliable means available. > It is entirely possible to make peer to peer applications work well with NAT, it is entirely possible even to make a server application work well with NAT. > it is possible. it is also much more complex to make things work that way, much more expensive, harder to make such applicaitons scalable, and much harder to diagnose problems when they crop up. > We are running out of IPv4 addresses and it is clear that IPv6 is not going to deploy fast enough to allow people to dispense with IPv4 before the exhaustion point is reached. Unless someone happens to have a working time machine handy the only plausible means of getting two billion plus users to attach multiple devices to the IPv4 Internet is for some devices to share an address. That means some form of NAT. > NAT is a given in IPv4. no argument there. > I don't see any reason to expect that my personal Internet needs should require more than an IPv6 /96 and an IPv4 /38. That is 256 ports worth of pooled IPv4 connectivity. > there you go trying to impose your personal needs on the entire Internet again. > New application protocols are required to be I2.0 compliant, that means using the DNS as their service discovery mechanism including advertising the IPv4/v6 transition support. > and I see you're also trying to saddle the entire Internet with 1970s peer discovery technology. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf