Problems with removing NAT from a network

Sun Jan 9 17:02:45 UTC 2011

On 1/8/11 3:22 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Maybe HE would volunteer to host some Skype servers at their various POPS
> for this purpose.

skype has the the ability to deploy supernodes on demand using their own
capacity. they've demonstrated that in the face of congestive collapse,
buying ipv6 transit isn't hard.

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 