Reply to post: Re: 20% is not noticable

IPv6 now faster than IPv4 when visiting 20% of top websites – and just as fast for the rest


Re: 20% is not noticable

You fire up a program is "it works", you don't see the effort the dev had to put in to make it work.

Unless you're trying to open a server to the Internet, that effort is zero to negligible. And if you *are* trying to open up that server, I *want* there to be some effort to prevent services being accidentally exposed to the outside world.

Not even FTP works through NAT without help

PORT mode doesn't work through NAT - and that's a good thing. PORT mode is obsolete. PASV mode works just fine.

Noticed how almost all these "control your ${something} from your phone" systems all use a hosted server ? It's only partly so the vendor can slurp your data and sell you to advertisers - it's also to work around the problems caused by NAT (and to an extent, dynamic IPs)

It's a zero-config way of setting up such kit; the manufacturers have cottoned on to the fact that end-users don't like having to configure everything. Once (if) we get rid of NAT, things will be no different - end-users won't like having to punch holes in their firewalls, so manufacturers will carry on doing exactly the same thing. This is not a NAT/IPv4 issue, it's an end-user one.

VoIP - yup, problems with NAT.

I wish people would stop quoting that as if it were gospel - I've been running (and reselling) VoIP services through NAT for over a decade. It works trivially. The only time you ever come across problems is when certain manufacturers (Juniper, most especially) try to add "helpers" to their networking kit to overcome some perceived issue; turning all that shite off makes it work.

Peer-peer stuff like torrents - yup, problems with NAT.

Ten years ago, perhaps. These days, it just works.

Yes, these are all surmountable problems

For the most part, they're non-existent problems.

(for example, the voip provider we use at work has large proxy servers - the cost of which goes into the product)

That's their choice of architecture; it's not the only one. Once the session has been initiated, individual phones can STUN their way through a NAT router and communicate directly - but that makes billing much harder, which is why commercial VoIP providers use a proxy. If you're not billing the calls, you don't need the proxy...

All this effort is largely a waste when IPv6 simply removes those problems.

Nope. IPv6 changes the problem space. End-users will have to manage their own firewalls. Anyone who thinks that is a good idea has never done home support. Overall, geeks will be better off with IPv6, less-technical users will find IPv4 much easier.

So anytime I read a tirade like yours about how "it's not needed", I know it's someone who hasn't got a clue and really has no idea how much borkage NAT causes and the effort needed to work around it.

Well, there are definitely two sides to that story. You are also entirely ignoring a set of very real problems that others will face because you don't see them as significant. IPv4 has some significant problems, but claims of rainbows and unicorns aplenty when we move to IPv6 are blinkered; IPv6 has its own problems, they're just different to the IPv4 ones.


POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019