<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: Comcast IPV6 plans have an interesting component .... in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20827350</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:07:48 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:07:48 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Comcast IPV6 plans have an interesting component ....</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20829490</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/875579"><b>Vchat20</b></A> : Couldn't have said it better. There are WAY too many LEGITIMATE applications that still require a set forwarded incoming port to operate properly. Not to mention, like you said, many applications/games do not like multiple users connecting from behind the same NAT router due to that limited set of ports needing to be forwarded.<br><br>And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It would be logistics hell to even manage a system like that to allow ports to be forwarded to customers and not only prevent it from being abused, but keep CSR calls at a minimum.<br><br>If Comcast really thinks this idea is going to fly, I expect a MASSIVE slap in the face by the world at large before it even gets off the ground.<br><small>--<br><i>I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity!</i> ~head_spaz</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20829490</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:31:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Comcast IPV6 plans have an interesting component ....</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20829077</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1553280"><b>NetAdmin</b></A> : Wow, Comcast's plan certain gets placed in the top five bad ideas of the networking world for the year with that one.   <br><br>Not only do they have to deal with the problem of blocking per IP, sharing an IP as proposed is a great way to break applications, increasing router CPU load and in general, create all sorts of problems.   Take the example of multiple users behind that IP trying to use a game like Half Life which runs on a set port - the two clients will never be able to be online simultaneously.   <br><br>Definitely not the best or wisest idea I've seen presented.   Comcast really needs to go back to the drawing board.<br><small>--<br>---<br>Eleven years of carrying <A HREF="http://www.thebackrow.net/cluebat/">The Clue Bat</a>...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20829077</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:06:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Comcast IPV6 plans have an interesting component ....</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20827747</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1394754"><b>karlmarx</b></A> : Umm, these are the **AssAss's, they will just sue all 200 people. They don't NEED any proof, if they collect from just 1 of the 200 people, they have paid for it.<br><small>--<br>The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20827747</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:41:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Comcast IPV6 plans have an interesting component ....</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20827350</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/794667"><b>hopeflicker</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  GOLFnSUN <A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>... multiple users sharing an IPV4 address. <br><br><b> for RIAA/MPAA watchdogs that track users by IP address; etc. If multiple users are using the same IP address, how are they going to police things with existing systems.</b><br><br><div class="bquote"></div> </div>That's a shame now, isn't it?<br><small>--<br>Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20827350</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:23:27 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Comcast IPV6 plans have an interesting component ....</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20827304</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>GOLFnSUN</b></A> : ... multiple users sharing an IPV4 address. <br><br><b>And that brings up all kinds of issues for web sites that block users by IP address; for RIAA/MPAA watchdogs that track users by IP address; etc. If multiple users are using the same IP address, how are they going to police things with existing systems.</b><br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9110401&pageNumber=2" >www.computerworld.com/action/art&middot;&middot;&middot;Number=2</A><br><div class="bquote">Comcast's idea is to allow many broadband customers to share one global IPv4 address instead of providing one global IPv4 address per customer.<br><br>"The exact ratio of IPv4 addresses to customers is something we are studying right now," Durand says. "We are working on some tests to see if it is 1-to-5, or 1-to-100 or 1-to-200."<br><br>The trick with sharing public IPv4 addresses among many customers is doing it in the simplest way, Durand says.</div><br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a><br>Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20827304</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:13:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
