[Gllug] IPv6 allocation options

Daniel P. Berrange dan at berrange.com
Tue Jan 18 17:00:36 UTC 2011

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 02:09:38PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 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.

I meant to include this link before, to show how much "fun" NAT hole punching
can be :-)


|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20110118/fc6e12b2/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk

More information about the GLLUG mailing list