[Gllug] IPv6 allocation options

Mark Brier mark at brier.me.uk
Tue Jan 18 16:52:19 UTC 2011

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:09:38 +0000
"Daniel P. Berrange" <dan at berrange.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:24:13PM +0000, Mark Brier wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:08:02 +0000
> > John Hearns <hearnsj at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 18 January 2011 11:36, Daniel P. Berrange <dan at berrange.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > > More seriously though the ever increasing use of NAT is bad
> > > > because it strongly favours a client-server model and makes
> > > > peer-2-peer harder/less reliable. This is not good for
> > > > resilience against government and corporate censorship.
> > > > Increasingly centralized hosting, under the banner "cloud
> > > > computing", is being pushed as the future of highly flexible &
> > > > reliable web hosting / publishing for everyone. The wikileaks /
> > > > Amazon incident demonstrates this is a exceedingly fragile
> > > > house of cards as far as freedom from political or corporate
> > > > decisions is concerned.
> > > 
> > > You are a COMMIE PINKO.
> > > Hell I bet you use leftie free software which is a cancer that
> > > attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
> > > touches.
> > > Heck don't you KNOW that the US Air Force has blocked access to
> > > your pinko liberal Guardian as it is a threat to the security of
> > > the free world?Sir,
> > 
> > Can we keep it on-topic ... please? Jeez man.
> > 
> > Your ISP is always going to be the provider of your access,
> > regardless of whether they give you a NATted address or a public
> > one. I personally don't see how a move to NAT over public or cloud
> > over non-cloud has implications for 'resilience against
> > govt/corporate censorship'. Surely if govts and companies want to
> > censor the internet, they'll just jump into bed with the ISPs?
> > 
> > Can you please expand and explain for me (and others who are missing
> > something here) ... how the .... "wikileaks / Amazon incident
> > demonstrates this is a exceedingly fragile house of cards as far as
> > freedom from political or corporate decisions is concerned" and how
> > this has anything to do with ipv6 or using NAT over public
> > addresses.
> In the traditional hosting world, no matter which ISP you choose for
> your servers, you basically get the same overall service. If you have
> problems with your ISP, you can trivially move to any other ISP by
> simply relocating your servers or services. Cloud hosting is
> appealing to to many because of the flexibility of billing& scaling
> up services as traffic demands. If you just use your cloud hosting
> company in the same way as your traditional ISP as a simple
> OS/machine provider, then you can still trivially move between
> providers. This is only the first phase of cloud hosting. Looking at
> Amazon who are leading the market in many respects, you'll see that
> the next phase of cloud hosting is to actually design & build your
> infrastructure around extra cloud services. Amazon are encouraging
> customers to make use of things like EC2, Elastic Block Store, Simple
> Queue Service, and much more. Other cloud providers will no doubt
> follow because these extra services do make it easier to build
> scalable web services. The trouble is that all of them are
> non-standard, proprietry services, so if you build scalable web
> services on the cloud with this technology your IT infrastructure is
> now locked into the cloud infrastructure of your Cloud provider and
> thus cannot freely move to other ISPs. You have very redundant
> hardware and software services, but no organization/provider
> redundancy as you do with traditional ISP hosting usage.
> The point I was trying to make wrt to IPv6 vs IPv4+NAT, is that NAT is
> a hurdle to peer2peer applications. IPv4+NAT does not preclude p2p
> usage, but it means that apps that want to be robust in the face of
> multiple layers of NAT, have to do some quite complex tricks to punch
> holes through the NAT(s). Punching holes in NAT also requires that
> both parties have access to a common rendevous server for initial
> connection setup, which is another failure risk. You could see the
> effect of this with the trouble Skype recently had bringing their p2p
> mesh network back online after its outage. The large number of
> clients needing to establish initial connection caused serious load
> on the supernodes.  If all clients had IPv6 public addresses, there
> would be potentially much less reliance on shared rendevous nodes to
> do NAT hole punching, and thus an overall more reliable & scalable
> p2p protocol.

Thanks, that made for an interesting read and I certainly understand
the original point more now :)

ipv4+NAT certainly adds complexity, I just wasn't convinced this had
political implications!

Now, did someone mention beer?!

Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk

More information about the GLLUG mailing list