Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk
Fri Feb 13 16:49:25 CET 2015
On 13/02/15 14:37, Thomas Schäfer wrote:
> Why a discussion to drill the firewall with very tricky things?
> (it's sound to me like the same sh... stun and other legacy ipv4 horrors.)
> In my opinion the firewall should be configurable (unfortunately
> DTAG-speedport-series, including the hybrid-modell dsl/lte can't) by
> upnp or by the user.
That's fine, and I agree in theory.
But Sony and Microsoft aren't going to just assume or enforce that, and
I don't blame them. They have to assume some proportion of devices will
be behind a firewall or NAT, and will write the code accordingly.
Done correctly, it's very little additional burden over just sending
straight UDP packets. There's really no reason for system/app vendors to
*not* implement traversal, and it doesn't harm the network.
But you're right, this has gone off-topic. The point was that IPv6 makes
this situation - person-to-person networking - better than in the NAT44
world, and would improve e.g. internet gaming.
More information about the ipv6-ops