Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Jack Bates wrote:

> Roger Marquis wrote:
> > Considering how many end-users sit behind NAT firewalls and non-firewall
> > gateways at home, at work, and at public access points all day without
> > issue, this is a particularly good example of the IETF's ongoing issues
> > with design-by-committee, particularly committees short on security
> > engineering and long on special interest.  While LECs and ISPs may or may
> > not feel some pain from LSN, they're equally sure feel better after
> > crying all the way to the bank.
>
> Remove uPNP from those home user nat boxes and see how well the nat to nat connections work. Office firewalls often 
> are heavily restrictive, use proxy layers to deal with connectivity issues and tend to have less typical types of 
> traffic.
>
> Jack

uPNP will not likely be feasible on LSN. So, yes, you need to do your NAT
testing in preparation for LSN on the basis of what works without uPNP.

Owen