[ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

> On 23 Oct 2019, at 14:26, Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> On 5/10/19 13:18, Gert Doering wrote:
> [....]
>> 
>> With the way the Internet is evolving today, IPv4+NAT might just be good
>> enough anyway.  End users want lots of TV channels, the big content 
>> networks are providing.  Everything (including DNS) is done over HTTPS
>> today, which is very NAT friendly.  CGN in the eyeball ISP world can 
>> easily achieve 10:1 or 50:1 IPv4 oversubscription, and with that, we 
>> have enough IPv4 for ever...
>> 
>> Well, yes, end-to-end communication will be lost forever.  But since
>> the "EVERYONE MUST HAVE A FIREWALL!" crowd broke that for the normal 
>> household anyway, it's lost anyway.
> 
> It's worse than that: Most IPv4 CPE devices have UPnP support, but IPv6
> ones often lack the hooks to punch holes into the fw. SO at the end of
> the day you get better end-to-end connectivity with IPv4 than with IPv6.
> 
> e.g., see:
> https://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/tip/Ensuring-P2P-apps-dont-cause-network-performance-issues-with-IPv6
> 

Isn’t this a we broke the network so we must further break the network scenario ? If you remove PAT a lot of the UPnP needs go away and  can be replaced by a mix of straightforward fw rules and stateful peeking like PAT residential CPEs do already. 
Going forward there’s nothing really stoping UPnP being implemented over IPv6 anyway is there ? 

> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
>