User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account



Posted Jul 21, 2011 18:11 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
In reply to: IPv6 NAT by Cyberax
Parent article: IPv6 NAT

That kind of device can only work for outbound connections, inbound traffic would still require dynamic DNS changes. In IPv6 it's pretty easy to change the network prefix and have that change announced via router advertisement, without changing any of the local subnets or local addressing, wouldn't doing that make more sense as an outbound-only failover mechanism? Coupled with quick DNS changes for inbound connections seems like it could solve the problem simply.

(Log in to post comments)


Posted Jul 22, 2011 7:10 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Sure, but home users don't usually run servers. And even companies often use rendezvous services like LogMeIn or DropBox instead of dealing with DNS and portmapping.


Posted Jul 23, 2011 19:19 UTC (Sat) by mastro (guest, #72665) [Link]

Home users very often run servers. They're part of their file-sharing "clients" (including BitTorrent), voice and video call programs, modern web browsers (that now or soon will support ConnectionPeer, <device>, WebSockets and whatnot), browser plugins and in general any P2P program.

For home users getting rid of NAT will be a huge step forward and open many new possibilities even for application that are usually considered unaffected by NAT, like browsers and websites.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds