Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:15:33 +0100

Yes, I was not talking about the Opera case, just a general case (I said
certain applications), which as you say, is probably more understandable in
peer-to-peer cases.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Remi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
> Organización: Remlab.net
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:22:05 +0100
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: v4 side unmodifiable
> 
> 
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:08:03 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> I don't completely agree. If certain applications decide to use Teredo if
> 
>> native neither 6to4 is not available, because they prefer IPv6 even if
> 
>> performance may seem lower, avoiding implementing a NAT traversal,
> 
> because
> 
>> it is actually about the same as using Teredo, I don't think is a bad
> 
>> coding practice.
> 
> 
> 
> You could _perhaps_ hold that case for a ***peer-to-peer*** application.
> 
> Opera is a Web browser. There is no such things as "NAT traversal" problems
> 
> when it comes to HTTP (because HTTP is _the_ most basic benchmark for a NAT
> 
> device).
> 
> 
> 
> Any HTTP client that ignores the policy table in any way, such as
> 
> by forcefully trying IPv6 before IPv4, is just plain BROKEN.
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing for POP, IMAP, SMTP, IRC (let alone DCC),
> 
> FTP with EPSV, XMPP or any other client-server TCP-based protocol.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rémi
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.