[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: v6-v4 transition scenarios, take 1
On 28 jul 2008, at 19:19, Pekka Savola wrote:
AFAIK, p2p protocols, at least downloading, are smart enough to work
through a NAT box that doesn't support any ALG, UPNP, port
redirection, etc. I have personal experience with this :-)
The ones that I've used depend heavily on UPnP (or NAT-PMP) or manual
port mappings. If you can't receive incoming sessions, it still works
because most other peers can. But you'll see a marked increase in
download speeds when you enable incoming sessions because you can now
connect to a larger set of peers.
So, does this require special casing in NAT64 techniques or are such
approaches enough client-server -like?
For the BitTorrent-like stuff you probably don't really have to do
anything: peers behind NAT64 wouldn't be able to receive incoming
sessions from IPv4 peers, but they can still have outgoing sessions to
many IPv4 peers and they should also be able to talk to IPv6 peers in
both directions. (Although IPv6 firewalls get in the way, but you can
disable those.)
For SIP ICE should work, especially with endpoint independent mapping
in the NAT64 box. Other protocols could be upgraded to use ICE as
well, but for things like BitTorrent this would require significant
changes to the signaling protocol.
I expect once the IPv6 ball gets rolling people will start turning
off IPv4 surprisingly fast.
Personally I doubt it -- a lot. Or we have a different things in
mind when we talk about "IPv6 ball gets rolling".
I wouldn't turn off v4 on any service I have association with until
at least 90% and hopefully more than 99% of the user base (or
potential user base) could reach it.
Right, I was thinking of the client side. There are basically two
things that I regularly do that I can't do when I run IPv6-only now:
printing and VoIP. This will only get better over time. (Or I use a
much smaller set of apps than most people.)
Many of the currently used NAT traversal techniques don't work well
with multiple layers of NAT, and with more users behind an IP
address it will be harder for users to open up ports to host
incoming sessions. So I don't think this is necessarily true.
I guess you're referring to NAT traversal mechanisms such as uPNP,
NAT-PMP etc.
Yes.