nanog mailing list archives
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
From: Roger Marquis <marquis () roble com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Jack Bates wrote:
If you mean, "do we still need protocols similar to uPNP" the answer is yes. Of course, uPNP is designed with a SPI in mind. However, we simplify a lot of problems when we remove address mangling from the equation.
Let's not forget why UPNP is what it is and why it should go away. UPNP was Microsoft's answer to Sun's JINI. It was never intended to provide security. All MS wanted do with UPNP was derail a competing vendor's (vastly superior) technology. Not particularly different than MS' recent efforts around OOXML. Roger Marquis
Current thread:
- RE: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?, (continued)
- RE: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Matthew Huff (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Charles Mills (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Larry Sheldon (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 23)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Larry Sheldon (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Marshall Eubanks (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Joel Jaeggli (Apr 24)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Larry Sheldon (Apr 24)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mohacsi Janos (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 23)