Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Sharefest, WebRTC, and file distribution
Posted Jun 27, 2013 15:23 UTC (Thu) by niner (subscriber, #26151)
Posted Jun 27, 2013 15:54 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Jun 27, 2013 16:32 UTC (Thu) by niner (subscriber, #26151)
Posted Jun 28, 2013 16:06 UTC (Fri) by kjp (guest, #39639)
Posted Jun 28, 2013 16:16 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151)
Posted Jun 28, 2013 16:40 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jun 28, 2013 16:42 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151)
Posted Jul 4, 2013 15:10 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727)
Note, however, that there is a big disincentive for ISPs to NAT you at all, which is only outweighed in IPv4 by the difficulty in obtaining enough IPv4 addresses for all your customers' needs. Specifically, the state required to NAT someone results in two costs to an ISP:
This doesn't mean that an ISP won't NAT you in an IPv6-only world, only that there is good cause to be optimistic that ISPs won't spend the extra to provide a reduced service, when their competitors can spend less and have any IPv6-only NAT desired by customers provided at the customer-controlled side of the CPE.
Posted Jun 29, 2013 17:03 UTC (Sat) by dmag (subscriber, #17775)
IPv6 is not going to fix file sharing.
Posted Jun 29, 2013 20:36 UTC (Sat) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205)
What does NAT have to do with firewalls?
Posted Jun 29, 2013 21:09 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Posted Jun 30, 2013 0:07 UTC (Sun) by foom (subscriber, #14868)
NAT should be useless with IPv6, but stateful perimeter firewalls -- which do cause most of the same issues as NAT w.r.t. sending data between hosts -- will certainly still be around.
Posted Jun 30, 2013 13:27 UTC (Sun) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)
In fact, unlike with IPv4, where the commonly used form of NAT implies a stateful firewall, with IPv6 NAT does not need any firewall (since it will often be a direct 1:1 mapping).
Posted Jun 30, 2013 14:23 UTC (Sun) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
Posted Jun 28, 2013 3:37 UTC (Fri) by filteredperception (guest, #5692)
I disagree. I may lose my battle, but today I'm feeling more optimistic than a month ago. I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):
"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.
We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...
Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.
The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)
Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ...
((see my other comment on this article for the document links))
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds