Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
jbates at brightok.net
Tue Apr 20 15:51:46 CDT 2010
Roger Marquis wrote:
> If this were really an issue I'd expect my nieces and nephews, all of
> whom are big
> game players, would have mentioned it. They haven't though, despite
> being behind
> cheap NATing CPE from D-Link and Netgear.
Disable the uPNP (some routers lack it, and yes, it breaks and microsoft
will tell you to get uPNP capable NAT routers or get a new ISP).
uPNP at a larger scale? Would require some serious security and
> Arguments against NAT uniformly fail to give credit to these security
Your argument has nothing to do with this part of the thread and
discussion of why implementing NAT at a larger scale is bad. I guess it
might have something to do in other tangents of supporting NAT66.
More information about the NANOG