On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/12/2014 18:12, heasley wrote: > ... >> I don't know anyone enchanted by v6. > > Strange choice of word. I'm not in the least enchanted by IPv4 > or by NAT44 either. I just know as a matter of fact that the > IPv4nternet ran out of addresses a while back and we have no > alternative but to fix it using IPv6. All the rest is details, > important details of course, but details. Dear Brian, Agreed. One should not support the standardization of a v6 to v4 transitional scheme which significantly weakens protocol security by restricting available port assignments at various points within a path. Suggested bit ranges of 7 to 10 bits significantly reduces protections otherwise obtained by random assignment. As such, it makes this a trivial matter for malefactors to deduce likely source entropies. Although IPv6 creates different challenges, it provides the only viable long term standard moving forward. In addition, NAT keep-alives tend to consume critical mobile energy resources. Regards, Douglas Otis