Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

[Naoki Matsuhira <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ole,

Sorry for the slow response

I have confirmed that NTPv6 has improvements over IPv4 NAT. However, there
are similar points, so I think experience with IPv4 may be helpful.

>From what I remember, many of the applications that had trouble with IPv4
NAT were network gaming applications. I believe it included an IP address
in the payload, like FTP. I also remember that it is difficult to deal with
commercial products.

Naoki

2024年3月22日(金) 18:36 Ole Troan <[e-mail]>:

> Naoki,
>
> > I don't support adoption.
> >
> > When NAT was first introduced, I experienced a lot of trouble. There may
> be fewer problems these days, but I think the reason is that applications
> are built with NAT in mind. In other words, I think it limits the ability
> to create applications.
> >
> > I think it is undesirable that something works in an environment without
> NAT but does not work in an environment with NAT. If this happens, should I
> fix the application or the network?
> >
> > I think it would be desirable to regain an environment where
> applications can be created without restrictions, and I think that would
> make the Internet better.
> >
> > Even though IPv6 can eliminate this restriction, I do not agree with
> restricting applications with NPTv6.
>
> Could you say a little more about _how_ NPTv6 restricts applications?
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
>
> PS: And for this discussion let’s assume NAT64 doesn’t exist, which of
> course restricts any IPv6 application to be equivalent to sitting behind a
> NAPT44.
>