Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

Are you saying that functional game consoles aren't your problem? 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Masataka Ohta" <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> 
To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> 
Cc: nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 11:22:59 PM 
Subject: Re: IPv6 deployment excuses 

Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote: 

> > A large ISP should just set up usual NAT. In addition, 

> Thus almost guaranteeing a call to the support desk for each and every single 
> game console, because the PS3 and PS4 doesn't have a configuration interface 
> for that, and the XBox probably doesn't either (and if it does, it's probably 
> something that Joe Sixpack can't do without help). 

With usual NAT? That is not my problem. 

> > But, if you want to run a server at fixed IP address 
> > and port, port forwarding must be static. 
>
> A laudable network design for my competitors. Feel free to deploy it at a 
> realistic sized ISP and let us know how it works out. 

Are you saying there is no realistic sized ISP offering fixed 
IP addresses without NAT? 

If not, additional setup of static port forwarding on NAT boxes 
can not be a problem. 

Masataka Ohta