Problems with removing NAT from a network

Frank Bulk frnkblk at iname.com
Sat Jan 8 23:22:16 UTC 2011


Maybe HE would volunteer to host some Skype servers at their various POPS
for this purpose.

Skype has to start somewhere.  While the v6-only population is still very
small, why not dual-stack the clients now with a heavily weighted preference
towards v4, track and understand the volume and capabilities of v6, and
slowly de-preference v4 over time?

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew at matthew.at] 
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:57 PM
To: Joel Jaeggli
Cc: Nanog Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network

On 1/6/2011 6:34 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 1/6/11 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Doesn't all of this become moot if Skype just develops a dual-stack
capable client
>> and servers?
> Really, only some fraction of the supernodes and the login servers need
> to be dual stack.
>
Without revealing too much about the architecture, I can tell you that 
it would need to be a significant fraction of the supernodes (due to how 
node-supernode mapping works in these types of P2P systems), the relay 
nodes (not mentioned) *and* the login servers. Not all of which are 
deployed and controlled by Skype, of course, as recent press about the 
most recent outage has reiterated for those who didn't know.

Matthew Kaufman







More information about the NANOG mailing list