Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
marquis at roble.com
Tue Apr 20 18:38:22 CDT 2010
Jack Bates wrote:
> 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).
Thing is, neither of these cheap CPE has UPNP enabled, which leads me to
question whether claims regarding large numbers of serverless multi-user
game users are accurate.
I disable UPNP as standard practice since it is cannot be enabled securely,
at least not on cheap CPE.
> 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.
I should have been clearer, apologies. WRT LSN, there is no reason
individual users couldn't upgrade to a static IP for their insecurely
designed multi-user games, and no reason to suspect John Levine's ISP is
not representative with 0.16% of its users requesting upgrades.
More information about the NANOG