From: "Ole Trøan" <otroan@employees.org>
To: Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Current state of ipv6 in openwrt barrier breaker
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:43:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B2ACDD9E-793C-48AC-BA60-859A63C527D7@employees.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50C83EEF.8000601@openwrt.org>
Steven,
>> I'd really like us to avoid that. it is going to be so hard to get NPT out of the network again.
>> it also forces applications to continue with STUN/TURN and all that stuff to discover global addresses
>> that can be used for referrals. please let us keep the end to end properties of IPv6 intact.
>
> Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you from a technical and ideological standpoint. However I don't think it would be wise - at least as an OpenWrt developer - to force any of this ideology onto users. IPv6 NAT made it into the Linux kernel so I guess there are some legitimate use-cases, so at least I don't want to be the guy assuming I know better then the people who implemented, requested and accepted these features.
>
> I'd rather have it implemented and more or less supported in the most sane way possible then people hacking it in on their own.
>
> However as I said I feel the need to have reasonable defaults and make it easy (easier?) to use the standards-compliant way than to use NAT. Thats where I can be reasoned with ;)
oh absolutely. there is a need for IPv6 NAT. particularly around multihoming to non-congruent networks, even in the home.
(this would of course be a lot prettier with ILNP, IPv6 NATs, better looking cousin.)
I'm only arguing against having IPv6 NAT as the default solution.
cheers,
Ole
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-12 8:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-11 19:56 Ole Trøan
2012-12-11 20:25 ` Dave Taht
2012-12-11 21:31 ` Ole Trøan
2012-12-12 8:19 ` Dave Taht
2012-12-12 9:08 ` Ole Trøan
2012-12-12 9:19 ` Steven Barth
2012-12-12 9:28 ` Ole Trøan
2012-12-12 9:47 ` Steven Barth
2012-12-12 10:11 ` Dave Taht
2012-12-12 18:56 ` Michael Richardson
2012-12-12 9:05 ` Török Edwin
2012-12-11 20:46 ` Steven Barth
2012-12-11 21:02 ` Ole Trøan
2012-12-12 8:23 ` Steven Barth
2012-12-12 8:43 ` Ole Trøan [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-12-10 8:41 Dave Taht
2012-12-10 9:15 ` Dave Taht
2012-12-10 11:27 ` Steven Barth
2012-12-10 11:40 ` Dave Taht
2012-12-10 11:53 ` Steven Barth
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=B2ACDD9E-793C-48AC-BA60-859A63C527D7@employees.org \
--to=otroan@employees.org \
--cc=cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=cyrus@openwrt.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox