Last Chance Rush -- was "Five Security Flaws in IPv6"

[David Conrad]

On May 12, 2007, at 12:50 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> You are right in one sense. Some customers don't care as long as  
> they can reach the content they care about.

The vast majority of Internet users fall in this category.

> Does not really matter whether the content is available via IPv4 or  
> via IPv6. In the other hand there are some customers who one to  
> share their content from their home network.

A tiny, tiny fraction.  Most people appear to be more than happy to  
have some 3rd party provide hosting services (e.g., flickr, youtube,  
akamai, etc.).  And oddly enough, many (all?) of those services don't  
even provide IPv6 addresses.  From their perspective, why bother?   
It's not like their customers care.

> With NATs this will be rather problematical... Currently we are  
> wasting engineering resources to solve different NAT traversal  
> problems....

As Roger's girlfriend said: ""why should I care? Isn't it people like  
your's job to sort this out?"

You _might_ get some traction with a VP of operations or engineering  
about the pain NAT causes, but fixing those problems costs money too.

Get used to NAT.  Learn to love it. If you are an IPv6-only site (the  
likelihood of which increases significantly when the IPv4 free pool  
runs out in 20{09,10,11,12}), you are going to need v6-to-v4 NAT to  
connect to anything useful.

Rgds,
-drc