dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to JAC70

Re: [Express] Rogers express 80gb cap?

said by JAC70:

This is just speculation, mind you, but as I understand it, with IPV6, every device should be assigned an IP, since NAT breaks protocols.

Which protocols would those be? The vast majority of protocols work perfectly fine with NAT. Most of those that used to get "broken" by NAT were only broken due to poor design such as remote client software relying on unnecessary IP:port information provided in the application protocol instead of IP:port provided in the existing packet headers which is the standard practice.

The only thing that got "broken" by NAT is the need to setup port forwarding for applications that need to accept inbound connections but this requirement will likely remain for security/firewalling purposes (prevent people from accidentally exposing open ports to the rest of the internet) with IPv6, so nothing really saved there either.

JAC70

join:2008-10-20
canada
said by InvalidError:

Which protocols would those be?

My limited understand is that most network boffins hate that NAT breaks the end-to-end model, but administrators don't want to renumber IPs if they change ISPs, and they don't want to have to learn new security methods. Then there's the problem that hardware manufacturers will just go ahead and build NAT66 devices anyway. I'll refer you to the IETF for questions.