[Wiltshire] August meeting

[David Fletcher]

On Sunday 26 July 2009 09:15:08 Simon Fryer wrote:
>
> I agree with David here. NAT is an unpleasant hack. I had never
> thought about the issues with peer to peer applications but I can see
> why.
>
> Starting to use the internet when everything had a real IP number made
> life easy! Now life is somewhat more difficult. I have a static IP
> number so that I can connect and copy files from home. NAT means I
> have to do it through my gateway box. Using non NAT would allow me to
> copy files directly from the box in question.
>
> Guess I should dig out the notes I made in 2002 when I last got an
> IPv6 connection. And when I did this I thought I was somewhat lagging
> behind.
>
> [chomp]
>
> Simon

I use a free noip service, with the update client installed on my home server, 
which updates my dynamic IP address as often as I configure it to do so. 
Therefore, anybody can easily use port forwarding on a router to direct 
packets with a particular port number to a single machine. In my case the 
only forwarded port is 995 for mail collection.

I've only got one machine in the house that runs 24/7 so it's no great problem 
for me that I can only do this with a single box. This might not be the case 
for others.

It is, though, still an "unpleasant hack", which depends on the reliability of 
a server somewhere in Nevada I think and the goodwill of its operator.

For my domestic purposes, a block of, say, 128 IPV6 addresses would be 
adequate x8 for me. The only thing I would have to be careful of, so far as I 
know, is firewalling, and blocking everything incoming apart from, say, 995 
isn't exactly "rocket science", so perhaps the sooner ISPs implement IPV6 the 
better it will be for all.

Dave